Author Topic: XP to 7 migration tomorrow - OMG - heart attack or bliss? (Read 11607 times)

fohat.digs · « **on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 22:10:29 »

Always the scariest day of the half-decade or so, for me - the day I cut the lifeline and make a fresh start.

I don't like to change computers and operating systems very often, and I did not give up DOS until Windows 98 came along, but was not too reluctant to make the leap to XP about 2003. However, as my silicone valley friend says, I think it's time to "nuke and pave" to start over once more.

Hey, my favorite keyboards were built when Reagan was president, so how crusty am I? I built a monster tower about 5 years ago, and stuck with XP, for a second 5 year hitch, never even considered Vista for a nanosecond. I crack her open a couple of times a year and upgrade a piece at a time, so it is still pretty robust. Hardware inadequacy is not my issue.

I would be willing to stay with XP for another couple of years, but the writing is on the wall, and I got a copy of 7 Professional for a good price. So here we go. Everything is backed up, and tomorrow is the big day. I figure something like this is an all-day affair, and considerable cursing and sweating will be involved, along with helpless boredom.

To begin with, the case will be opened, and some minor pieces will be upgraded, such as the card reader and some fans. Biggest item is a new 600W power supply. No issues with the old one, but it can't hurt, and there are enough people/computers in my family that I know I will probably find a use for the old one eventually.

I plan to unplug all the drives except for C: (don't ask how many are in there, it is almost embarrassing) just for safety's sake. When 7 is operational, I will pack everything back into its corner behind the desk in the maze of miles of wires.

So, if you don't hear from me for a while, that's why.

PS - did I mention that I am a glutton for punishment, and that I dual-boot to Ubuntu and will upgrade from 10.04 to 12.04 at the same time? I really must be crazy. I am not looking forward to the 12.04 thing, that "Unity" desktop seems like garbage from what I have used of it, but no use trying to swim against the current. Even though I am old and stubborn, I have finally learned to go all the way when I finally take the plunge.

PPS - by far my biggest gripe with 7 is that they emasculated Windows Explorer, the center of my computing universe, and my pathway to everything. WTF are "libraries" and "collections" anyway? Who ever said that there was ANYTHING WRONG with directory trees?

fohat.digs · « **Reply #1 on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 22:17:45 »

Receiving my PC World magazine a week or so ago, and reading about Windows 8, was what made me decide to move up to 7 "for the duration"

Windows 8 looks like all my worst nightmares rolled into one.

retsteel · « **Reply #2 on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 22:57:35 »

windows 8 is what made me decide to install linux on a few machines.

The_Beast · « **Reply #3 on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 23:41:29 »

Every other windows usually sucks, I predict Window 8 will be a flop

Anyways for the topic, backup your data and install Window 7. You won't regret it

rknize · « **Reply #4 on:** Mon, 28 May 2012, 23:50:23 »

I finally bit the bullet recently as well, same as you. I mostly use the machine for gaming, so it just has to stay sane enough for that. The "upgrade" (really a reinstall) went OK. So far, Win7 seems decent.

silat · « **Reply #5 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 00:21:53 »

7 is best MS OS ever.
I would skip 8 and wait for the 2nd version....

Malphas · « **Reply #6 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 05:40:40 »

Quote from: The_Beast;602504

Every other windows usually sucks

Trite nonsense, repeated enough times that people believe it. XP is heralded as some sort of saint of Windows OSes, when it was actually frickin' terrible upon release, and had the exact same driver, comparability and performance issues that Vista had when it came out. Except everyone forgot that after running it for years on massively overpowered hardware and two service packs. Windows 7 is essentially near identical to Vista, yet everyone likes it, and that's mainly just due to the hardware and drivers catching up again, rather than improvements in the OS itself.

Also, Windows 7 is fine, OP. Just replace your Explorer usage with a third party alternative if you need directory trees. I find the breadcrumbs thing provides pretty much the exact same function though, while being a lot less messy, and libraries are optional of course. The Taskbar overhaul is great, don't be one of those awful people that configures it to work as closely to XP as possible, just get used to the new system and you'll fine it's about a hundred times better than XP's.

GeorgeStorm · « **Reply #7 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 06:05:18 »

I made the move earlier this year since getting an SSD.

Took me a while to get used to it, now fine, wouldn't say it's miles better than XP, but it's not worse either (atleast for my uses) once you work out where the options are now etc

I wouldn't got Windows8, as ripster said, it's a tablet OS, and in my opinion horrific.

Malphas · « **Reply #8 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 06:19:13 »

Have you used it? It's just a further refinement of Windows 7, the way 7 was of Vista. Yes, Metro UI is clearly for tablets and will probably work pretty well on them, and for desktop it's stupid, but it takes literally one click after booting Windows 8 to get into the traditional (well, Windows 7) desktop, so it's hardly a big deal.

Thing is, I don't think it would take a huge amount of tweaking to have made Metro desktop PC friendly, with better keyboard and mouse controls. Nobody sane still uses the "all programs" part of the Start Menu anymore, so essentially it's just become a search field with a few application/directory shortcut icons - there's no reason that functionality can't be incorporated better into a fullscreen GUI instead of restricted to the bottom-right corner.

The biggest problem with Windows 8 is that it's going to be a disjointed mess from an ecosystem perspective, with some people (desktop/desktop replacement users) permanently using it in desktop mode with desktop software, and then tablet/ultraportables using the Metro UI and Metro apps, which defeats the purpose of having one operating system across all devices in the first place.

Lanx · « **Reply #9 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 06:56:48 »

win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
win 8 ... (track record says bad)

win 7 is great, get used to it imo. (i still have xp running my laptops tho)

keyboardlover · « **Reply #10 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:13:02 »

Win 8 = Win 7 + Metro - start button

Maarten · « **Reply #11 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:16:00 »

For stupid simple machines id like to keep fast i still prefer XP.... For the fancy full on media experience its hard to beat 7 tho, havent tried 8 yet.

GeorgeStorm · « **Reply #12 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:16:40 »

Yeah I have used it.
Just didn't like it, you say it only takes one click to get to a W7 like desktop.
Well, with W7, it doesn't take any

I may try it again in the future, see if they've improved it (in my eyes) otherwise I've no desire to 'upgrade'.

N8N · « **Reply #13 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:17:23 »

So have you done it yet? IMHO hold off on updating ubuntu to 12.04 because it's a buggy mess on my system which was fine under 10.04. I'm not even sure if auto updates are offered for 10.04 yet I think LTS users don't get prompted until later. But I thought to myself, "what could possibly go wrong?"

Malphas · « **Reply #14 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 07:24:35 »

Quote from: Lanx;602648

win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good

Again, absolute crap.

nmd · « **Reply #15 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 19:38:10 »

I REALLY like Win7, the only thing I needed to make it perfect would be Expose, which thankfully Switcher accomplishes well enough.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #16 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 22:16:59 »

Worked pretty well, took all day. Haven't tackled the 10.04 - 12.04 beast yet.

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 51800[/ATTACH]

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 51801[/ATTACH]

Thanks for the words of encouragement!

HolidaySHRIMP · « **Reply #17 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 23:42:11 »

Windows 8 can be used without ever going into metro ui.

alaricljs · « **Reply #18 on:** Tue, 29 May 2012, 23:55:46 »

Quote from: HolidaySHRIMP;603588

Windows 8 can be used without ever going into metro ui.

beta perhaps... MS has plans to change that.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #19 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 00:11:18 »

Quote from: Lanx;602648

win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
win 8 ... (track record says bad)

win 7 is great, get used to it imo. (i still have xp running my laptops tho)

Quote from: Malphas;602662

Again, absolute crap.

Too simplistic maybe. Millenium did suck IMHO, Vista is pretty good by this point although I hated it at first. As much as I love XP, it like most version of Windows, wasn't great till getting a service pack or two.

quickcrx702 · « **Reply #20 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 01:43:18 »

Quote from: Lanx;602648

win3.1 good
win95 bad
win98 good
win millenium bad
win xp good
win vista bad
win 7 good
win 8 ... (track record says bad)

win 7 is great, get used to it imo. (i still have xp running my laptops tho)

I mostly agree that every other Windows version pretty much sucks, and that Millenium was garbage. However, I noticed that you omitted Windows 2000, which was the business alternative to Windows ME, and was one of the most stable and best performing operating systems Microsoft ever put out.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #21 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 02:00:55 »

Quote from: quickcrx702;603640

I mostly agree that every other Windows version pretty much sucks, and that Millenium was garbage. However, I noticed that you omitted Windows 2000, which was the business alternative to Windows ME, and was one of the most stable and best performing operating systems Microsoft ever put out.

As I understand it, Windows ME was based on Windows 98 while XP was based on the same kernel as Windows 2000 which was a great & stable OS.

Malphas · « **Reply #22 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 03:51:07 »

Actually Lanx' list was perfectly consistent with regard to what versions he included, those all follow a lineage of being consumer oriented releases from 3.1 onwards. If you were to include Windows 2000 then it makes no sense, because it then becomes a list of consumer oriented versions with one corporate version included (another reason this good/bad thing is nonsense is that everyone seems to just include whatever random versions of Windows they like to shoehorn it into fitting their false pattern). If you include 2000 then why aren't you also including the various NT versions that 2000 was derived from as well? Or why aren't you just including everything, including CE versions?

Also, did you guys actually use 2000 for any length of time or are you just repeating the same tired cliches said by uninformed people all over the web? Sure, 2000 (and NT in general) is technically superior to 9x, but at the time 2000 was obviously completely useless if you wanted to use a graphics card, or play Half-Life or something. I don't think people can tell the difference between user experience quality - which is dependant on a number of factors, and technical quality. Vista was technically sound, much moreso than XP was upon release, but the general ecosystem at the time made it less compelling, due to the steeper hardware requirements, incompatible software, driver issues, etc. - i.e the exact same things people complained about when XP was released. Am I really the only person on the Internet that has a functioning memory?

Malphas · « **Reply #23 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 04:04:54 »

Here's what I'd say a fair summing up of the Windows versions was, without the rose-tinted glasses and trying to fit a silly cliche:

Windows 1.0-3.1 (not even a real OS, just a frontend and application suite for MS-DOS essentially) > Windows 95 (awful), Windows 98 (awful), Windows 98SE (slightly less awful), Windows Me (awful)

Windows NT (irrelevant) > Windows 2000 (sound), Windows XP (rubbish) > Windows XP SP1 (OK), Windows XP SP2 (good), Windows XP SP3 (good) > Windows Vista (rubbish) > Windows Vista SP1 (OK), Windows Vista SP2 (good) > Windows 7 (good)

TheProfosist · « **Reply #24 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 04:26:29 »

There are some tweaks you going to want to do so that explorer let you navigate as you used to i believe their all in the files part of the control panel. I can post some screenshots of the settings i use for that and other thing if intertested but it makes win 7 a much happier environment for me.

I am alod looking forward to win8 not metro but just about everything else their doing will only improve how the os runs on the hardware.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #25 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 06:36:44 »

My experience is that once you start using Win 7, you WON'T want to go to XP.

It is significantly better.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #26 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 08:39:40 »

Quote from: Malphas;603691

Actually Lanx' list was perfectly consistent with regard to what versions he included, those all follow a lineage of being consumer oriented releases from 3.1 onwards. If you were to include Windows 2000 then it makes no sense, because it then becomes a list of consumer oriented versions with one corporate version included (another reason this good/bad thing is nonsense is that everyone seems to just include whatever random versions of Windows they like to shoehorn it into fitting their false pattern). If you include 2000 then why aren't you also including the various NT versions that 2000 was derived from as well? Or why aren't you just including everything, including CE versions?

Also, did you guys actually use 2000 for any length of time or are you just repeating the same tired cliches said by uninformed people all over the web? Sure, 2000 (and NT in general) is technically superior to 9x, but at the time 2000 was obviously completely useless if you wanted to use a graphics card, or play Half-Life or something. I don't think people can tell the difference between user experience quality - which is dependant on a number of factors, and technical quality. Vista was technically sound, much moreso than XP was upon release, but the general ecosystem at the time made it less compelling, due to the steeper hardware requirements, incompatible software, driver issues, etc. - i.e the exact same things people complained about when XP was released. Am I really the only person on the Internet that has a functioning memory?

Windows 2000 was a good server and workstation OS which is what it was. I used it in both of those capacities and in fact still have a handful of servers running it although it's obsolete and needs to be updated. Hell I still have a box here at home with 2000 on it although it's powered off at the moment.

Quote from: Malphas;603698

Here's what I'd say a fair summing up of the Windows versions was, without the rose-tinted glasses and trying to fit a silly cliche:

Windows 1.0-3.1 (not even a real OS, just a frontend and application suite for MS-DOS essentially) > Windows 95 (awful), Windows 98 (awful), Windows 98SE (slightly less awful), Windows Me (awful)

Windows NT (irrelevant) > Windows 2000 (sound), Windows XP (rubbish) > Windows XP SP1 (OK), Windows XP SP2 (good), Windows XP SP3 (good) > Windows Vista (rubbish) > Windows Vista SP1 (OK), Windows Vista SP2 (good) > Windows 7 (good)

That's a pretty good list. Windows for workgroups 3.11 was quite stable and useful. Windows 95 might have been awful but was pretty huge for Microsoft Windows based consumer products. Windows NT might be irrelevant for most home users but then so is Windows 2000, and both were great workstation & server products. And NT an essential link in the chain. And nobody mentioned OS/2 which was technically quite good in some ways but unfortunately snuffed out by Gates' anti-competitive vendor bundling practices before it became fashionable to call Micro$oft on those practices. By the time IBM tried to do anything about this, it was all over.

Wildcard · « **Reply #27 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 09:56:27 »

Windows 7 will be a nice migration from XP, assuming your hardware works well with Win7. No more Aero on Windows 8. I've been testing the Windows 8 consumer preview for about a month now and it has yet to grow on me. Very weird/awkward. But hey, they include a multi-monitor taskbar now.

I think the reccomended migration is XP --> Win 7 --> OS X

keyboardlover · « **Reply #28 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 09:58:10 »

Quote from: RiffRaff;603865

I think the reccomended migration is XP --> Win 7 --> OS X

OS X?

Ewwwwwww.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #29 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 10:15:40 »

Profosist - thanks!

There was some tweaking in there that was very helpful.

Why do they have to keep moving and changing everything? Like the "ribbon" in Office a few years ago, they seemed to take the really important stuff like "Tools" and "Options" and "View" and scattered the pieces willy-nilly throughout the (greatly bloated) new menu system.

As much as I would like to switch everything back to "Classic" setup, I know that will just prolong my agony. Time to start learning where everything is, all over again.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #30 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 12:49:08 »

Quote from: fohat.digs;603878

Profosist - thanks!

There was some tweaking in there that was very helpful.

Why do they have to keep moving and changing everything? Like the "ribbon" in Office a few years ago, they seemed to take the really important stuff like "Tools" and "Options" and "View" and scattered the pieces willy-nilly throughout the (greatly bloated) new menu system.

As much as I would like to switch everything back to "Classic" setup, I know that will just prolong my agony. Time to start learning where everything is, all over again.

Well, progress can be painful. I hated the ribbon interface in office but found a good crutch with ubitmenu which essentially added all the classic options on a new menu tab. Then I would try to figure it out with the ribbon and go to the classic menu if I couldn't. Allowed me to learn but not get stuck if I couldn't figure it out.

longweight · « **Reply #31 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 13:37:57 »

I love the Win7 Ribbons, so easy to find the page you need with the scroll wheel!

keyboardlover · « **Reply #32 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 13:40:18 »

You'll love Windows 8 then.

LOTS of ribbons!

emptyk · « **Reply #33 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 14:14:46 »

Quote from: longweight;604026

I love the Win7 Ribbons, so easy to find the page you need with the scroll wheel!

can you elaborate? I am not familiar with this feature.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #34 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 17:26:54 »

Quote from: emptyk;604051

can you elaborate? I am not familiar with this feature.

Nice avatar, haven't seen that one in years.

Internetlad · « **Reply #35 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 17:29:31 »

Quote

wtf are Libraries and Collections

Glossing over the actual question as I assume it was rhetorical, some people who don't understand the intricacies of computer folder hierarchy (IE 95% of computer users) appreciate having all their pictures consolidated in one place, and I often use it as a selling point when pushing 7 based machines.

As much of a PITA learning a new OS from "scratch" can be, as far as i'm concerned, go with the flow, in a month you'll be used to the new OS and in 6 months you can complain about windows 8.

(IMHO XP and 7 are very similar, I use both regularly and it's mostly stuff getting moved or renamed.)

1391401 · « **Reply #36 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:11:14 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;603749

My experience is that once you start using Win 7, you WON'T want to go to XP.
It is significantly better.

I agree and I am typically resistant to upgrading operating systems as well.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #37 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:12:36 »

No, the question was not rhetorical at all.

Although I understand that the actual points upon the disk where the data dots are ACTUALLY burned down is not a contiguous "map" as it were, I am a very "visual" person and I need to be able to "see" what I am attempting to conceptualize.

A single, straightforward, unambiguous directory tree is the clearest and easiest way for me to "get my head around" what I am looking for, and how to get to there.

Telling me that, hey, "here are 5 different ways to get to the same place" is like handing me a plate of spaghetti when I have asked for a map.

I do a lot of driving, and I go nuts when somebody gives me directions via landmarks. I have to have a map in my mind, so that I can understand what my route "looks like" on the ground, or I cannot function.

How can I comprehend that what might look like a root-level directory called "Pictures" is actually a subdirectory called "My Pictures" to another subdirectory called "My Documents" to another subdirectory called "harry" in a directory called "Documents and Settings" in a root-level directory called "Users"?

What is the purpose of these layers of obfuscation besides making logical people insane?

Shortcuts are great, and I use them all the time, but there needs to be SOME place where you can cut through the crap and see with clarity.

Philosophers and linguists devote a lot of thought to "symbols" and I agree that symbols are supremely dangerous because they replace and displace reality, taking on an artificial importance of their own, when they should be totally subservient to whatever it is that they are representing.

IMO, that is.

So, I reiterate, WTF are libraries and collections and playlists and all these other ways of artificially "tagging" things, if they prevent you from going straight to the source?

"Mostly stuff getting moved or renamed" Holy Sh*t! who moved my cheese! Why move or rename stuff?

alaricljs · « **Reply #38 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:15:47 »

The pain with libraries/collections is I haven't found a way to obliterate them. I don't like the 'logical' folder with all my crap in it from various locations. There are reasons I save data to particular folders/partitions/drives and I don't want to jump through hoops to accomplish it.

sth · « **Reply #39 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:22:50 »

I've done an all right job of just ignoring Libraries and Collections altogether. Has no effect on my Windows Explorer usage other than some superfluous visual cruft in the sidebar.

IvanIvanovich · « **Reply #40 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 19:47:13 »

Libraries is just like symlinks, or well an xml database of symlinks to be more specific. If you don't want to use it, ignore it. I like it for sharing on network. I can keep my things organized in however manner I want, but to make it easy for others I can dump all my carefully categorized directory structure into MUSIC as an example for everyone else. Other people seem to be more happy to wade through my music collection viewing files in alphabetical order than drilling through my BPM / genre / sub genre / artist / album structure. Hey I'm a DJ... BPM is most important. I don't expect other people to want organized like that, and it's better if they don't even see it.
Learning new gui can take time, but I usually hardly care what is done with it asides form personal taste as long as they don't screw around with short cut keys. There are several new ones, and changes in 7 by the way. I recommend to start there as many of them are quite handy.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #41 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 20:39:47 »

My music collection is an excellent example. I have owned too many thousands of LPs and CDs in my lifetime, and now it is also all pretty much stored digitally on my 2TB hard drive, which is great, because I can listen to anything I want without even standing up! 30K+ "songs" in my MP3 collection, as it were

If I want to listen to a CD or LP, I pull it off the shelf and cue it up. Afterwards, I return it to its physical location. 90% is "Jazz" or "Rock" with half a dozen small categories occupying a lesser niche. So, mentally, I do have to know what "style" it is, I grant you that. It is actually very straightforward, and I have very little trouble, except that that intersection of Rock/Folk/Blues where it gets seriously blurred. Once Folk and Blues get electrified, they really sound like Rock, to me, but I digress.

The basic question, as I see it, is:

Top - Down

Bottom - Up

or

Inside - Out

For example, if I want to listen to "Conference of the Birds" by Dave Holland, I go, , to the D: drive, to the "Jazz" directory, to the "Dave Holland" directory, to the "1972 Conference of the Birds" folder, and select either the entire album or the individual track, and "play" it. I cannot conceive of a simpler or more direct method to accomplish this.

What is a "playlist" but some sort of virtual mix-CD? I always go along, song-by-song, or album-by-album, depending on my mood. I have little desire to decide now, what I will be listening to in 2 hours! Otherwise I would just make a mix-CD for the car!

All this "Library" business just seems like turning everything inside-out, to me. I have spent an awful lot of time ripping and burning and carefully placing things where I want them. Just dumping them into a big pot with "tags" on them sounds a lot like the old Vietnam-era saying: "Just nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out"

But that's just me, a hopeless old fart. I guess I just never thought about what a "symlink" is supposed to be, but it sounds twisted. And how do you "ignore" the OS directory (or non-directory, as it were) structure when it refuses to get out of your face?

IvanIvanovich · « **Reply #42 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 21:14:03 »

Well while I don't like everything about the way it was implemented, libraries can be handy. They were even planning on making the whole 'filesystem' based on this idea at a point (see WinFS)... things are there but not really. It's a relational database of pointers to something. So it's a database masquerading as a directory. Why would you want that? It can be nice when something spans across several terabytes of multiple drives, but should be presented as one 'thing' like people that rip their bd discs to their drives. You want to browse your collection, you can do it uninterrupted instead of going a-g on one drive then having to navigate around explorer to continue with h-n and so on. It has it's uses.

emptyk · « **Reply #43 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 22:24:03 »

^^ Well, I have my music organized like that in Win 7; the only difference is that the "root" folder is the default "Music" Library. But once I open that, I have all of my folders according to Artist. Then subfolders under each Artist folder for the individual albums. Then of course the FLAC files themselves, along with cover art and other documentation in each album subfolder. Maybe I'm not understanding the issue here and/or I'm not using the Library the way it is intended to be used, but it seems to work OK for me (at least for music organization).

alaricljs · « **Reply #44 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 22:43:04 »

Well, libraries are not compatible with network drives so that leaves out all my media and all my docs and... well basically it leaves out everything. So they are useless.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #45 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 22:47:02 »

Whatever works for you, the individual, is best.

I don't mind having a straightforward, unambiguous directory tree for whatever I want to organize, and am willing to "make it so" as I go along.

"Music" is together in one place, it even rates its own hard drive.

Likewise "Photos" and "Customers" and "Family History" and "Computer Info" and whatever else.

All this other stuff seems like Rube Goldberg ways to work-around illogical and disorganized file storage.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #46 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 23:01:08 »

I don't really get what you're complaining about - Explorer looks pretty similar to me.

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ] 51895[/ATTACH]

IMO the file structure changes made the OS MUCH more intuitive. "Documents and Settings" was a nightmare and never made any sense - so they got rid of it and replaced it with user directories which make MUCH more sense.

TheProfosist · « **Reply #47 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 23:28:17 »

Quote from: sth;604233

I've done an all right job of just ignoring Libraries and Collections altogether. Has no effect on my Windows Explorer usage other than some superfluous visual cruft in the sidebar.

same here, I actualy had to think about what was being talked about.

TheProfosist · « **Reply #48 on:** Wed, 30 May 2012, 23:31:31 »

O i also recommended turning indexing off completely if you dont mind searching taking a while. I especially recommended this if you have a ssd.

REVENGE · « **Reply #49 on:** Thu, 31 May 2012, 05:35:40 »

Win7 will become the newXP.

News:

Author Topic: XP to 7 migration tomorrow - OMG - heart attack or bliss? (Read 11607 times)