up vote 38 down vote favorite
12
share [g+] share [fb]

Possible Duplicates:
Am I missing out on anything by sticking by Windows XP?
Windows 7 Features Not Found In Previous Versions

In Jeff Atwood's latest blog entry on Windows 7 he talks about getting people to move off Windows XP.

What, specifically, can be done in Windows 7 that cannot be done in Windows XP?

I'm not looking for usability or GUI improvements, unless they happen to significantly reduce the time that it takes to perform tasks that were previously prohibitively time consuming.

link|improve this question
3  
A similar question was posed (superuser.com/questions/4287/…) but most features could be done in Windows XP I believe. – emddudley Jul 28 '09 at 2:14
3  
The Wikipedia article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7) seems particularly good. – emddudley Jul 28 '09 at 2:14
Wow, two downvotes on my answer, nevermind. Keep your XP, because you are obviously disinterested in anything else. – jtimberman Jul 28 '09 at 4:46
Please refer to the other post, since there are some good answers there as well – Ivo Flipse♦ Jul 28 '09 at 7:06
If you look at the answers and think "this can be don in XP", I wonder what would be the answer to "Can this be done in Win2000 or Win98?" - progress is not always about completely new things. – Xenorose Aug 23 '09 at 16:42
show 1 more comment
feedback

closed as exact duplicate by Tom Wijsman, random♦ Sep 6 '10 at 0:21

This question covers exactly the same ground as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it.

24 Answers

up vote 64 down vote accepted

My personal favorite in Vista (and hence Win7): per-application volume control in the OS volume mixer... now I can turn down loud applications (IM!?) while not losing the sound of my videos or games.

link|improve this answer
2  
Sounds like a handy feature – emddudley Jul 28 '09 at 3:18
1  
You do have it under Linux - with pulseaudio (which comes by default under Ubuntu afaik). – Cd-MaN Jul 28 '09 at 9:58
19  
The fact that this is the most upvoted feature speaks volumes! (pun not intentioanl) – hasen j Aug 4 '09 at 2:55
2  
I know... it's such a simple feature... but I think it really addresses a problem for me. A feature does not have to be complicated to be insanely useful. – jerryjvl Aug 4 '09 at 4:12
2  
It's going to take a bit more than that to get me to switch from XP to 7. – Yuval A Aug 4 '09 at 18:46
show 3 more comments
feedback
up vote 35 down vote

Search, search, search.

The Windows 7 (and Vista) search is far beyond the mediocre tool included with XP.

link|improve this answer
On my XP machine, I use Launchy to start an app (Alt+Space, type name of app, Enter). In Win7 it's built-in to the start menu (Windows key, type name of app (or doc is some cases), Enter). I love that the Start menu is searchable. – Travis Nov 4 '09 at 16:43
2  
For indexed stuff it's better. For non-indexed stuff XP would take a while but find things, while Vista and 7 just refuse to search things that aren't indexed. See also: expatsoftware.com/articles/2008/08/… – Kyralessa Jan 7 '10 at 21:28
5  
Everything(voidtools.com) is available for XP AND 7, and is far better than the 7 search anyways. – Fake Name Apr 26 '10 at 6:13
feedback
up vote 27 down vote

You can connect your computer to the internet without automatically getting a virus

Edit: Why the downvotes? This is a serious response. XP RTM didn't even have a firewall, but Windows 7 comes with one that's on by default. C'mon people.

link|improve this answer
Hmm are you sure? – hasen j Jul 28 '09 at 4:45
18  
XP SP2 came with a firewall (on by default, even), then it became a standard feature in the later releases. Still, the statement is kinda true. – grawity Jul 28 '09 at 6:47
6  
poor explained, XP SP2 has introduces a firewall, good or not it's there since some years. – Drake Jul 28 '09 at 9:11
2  
Modern references to XP generally refers to XPSP2+. SP2 was different enough to RTM that mixing references between the two seems dishonest (espeically in reference to security). It is fair to note that many architectual security features were introduced in Vista and carried into Windows7 (ASLR, etc) – Ari Pernick Jul 28 '09 at 15:32
1  
If you have the original XP CD (no SP), you have no firewall until SP2 or SP3 is up and running... – MetalMikester Nov 4 '09 at 15:00
show 3 more comments
feedback
up vote 20 down vote

Search the start menu.

This has been available since Vista, and saves lot of time if you have more than 3-4 applications that you use on a regular basis. On XP, you need to navigate a hopeless tree of programs in order to launch the application you want.

link|improve this answer
On XP, I just use Launchy, which is actually more convenient than Start menu searching. – Kyralessa Sep 22 '09 at 14:13
2  
I use Launchy on XP at work, but haven't found a need for it at home (on Vista and Windows 7.) – MetalMikester Nov 4 '09 at 15:01
2  
Kyralessa, I'm interested in why you say Launchy is more convenient. First, you must install it rather than it being built-in and second, you have to hit Alt+Space instead of just Windows key. – Travis Nov 4 '09 at 16:58
1  
Here are a few reasons: (1) Launchy is faster; it filters as you type. The Start menu waits a bit. (2) Launchy can be customized to link any word(s) to any folder, web site, program, whatever. (3) Launchy can have a shortcut to any type of file, and you can tell it to only pull certain types of files from certain locations (e.g. no .doc files from My Documents, but all the .doc files from My Documents\My Important Contracts). (4) Launchy matches on any characters in the word. I can type "ie" in Launchy and get Internet Explorer, but "ie" in Start Menu search doesn't find it. – Kyralessa Dec 21 '09 at 22:00
Launchy doesn't search the contents of a file, Windows 7 Search does. – kai Jan 18 '10 at 23:34
feedback
up vote 19 down vote

Rearrange task bar buttons. (Ya, I know its a GUI/usability feature which the OP didn't want... but in my opinion at least, it's something that is often required. Hopefully, I don't get much down-votes).

Personally, I have never liked the "Group similar taskbar buttons" feature in Windows XP. To me, it just hides the windows I frequently need. I often find myself opening up the group list and searching for the button I require in that list.. and if I don't find it in 2 or 3 seconds, I start getting angry...

link|improve this answer
How can I rearrange task bar buttons? – Toro Jul 28 '09 at 7:04
Yikes.. I learnt about this on the Net, but never installed Windows 7.. let me google that for you... – Shivasubramanian A Jul 28 '09 at 7:48
Ah... check this out... thewindowsclub.com/move-rearrange-taskbar-buttons-in-windows-7.. It appears you can simply drag and drop... – Shivasubramanian A Jul 28 '09 at 7:49
Google Taskbar Shuffle for the same feature in XP – itsadok Nov 5 '09 at 11:25
You can also drag and drop system tray icons, which is nice if they're always showing. Windows seems to preserve the order across reboots, too. – Alan Aug 21 '10 at 21:05
show 1 more comment
feedback
up vote 15 down vote

Better handling of SSD drives !

link|improve this answer
Definitely cool – emddudley Aug 1 '09 at 1:33
feedback
up vote 14 down vote

Homegroups and better networking

Ever wanted to share your music, pictures and documents within your home computers and found the task to be difficult? HomeGroup in Windows 7 will simplify the tasks associated with sharing music, pictures and documents within your home network and Windows 7 PCs. HomeGroup also allows you to share your USB connected printers, if you have a printer in the living room that's shared by HomeGroup it will be automatically installed onto your other HomeGroup enabled PCs. Domain-joined computers can be part of a HomeGroup too.

link|improve this answer
I find horribly difficult to access shared folders on Windows 7 – Jader Dias Aug 23 '09 at 13:17
feedback
up vote 12 down vote

You can play DirectX 10, 10.1, or (theoretically) 11 games.

link|improve this answer
1  
And they can't be installed in XP? – hasen j Jul 28 '09 at 5:28
2  
That's a marketing based reason. If I'm wrong could you note what, apart from strategy is stopping Microsoft from supporting DirectX 10-11 on XP? – dlamblin Jul 28 '09 at 5:38
theoretically a good reason, but in real world the games that really uses DX10 you can count on two hands, and they give so much better graphic than DX9 – Drake Jul 28 '09 at 9:09
5  
Indeed, DirectX 10, 10.1, and 11 are not available in Windows XP. There are a number of games with DirectX 10 support, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_10_support Most of these also offer DirectX 9 support with slightly reduced graphics. Marco.ragogna is correct, the difference in graphics is, in almost all cases, slight. – ChrisInEdmonton Jul 28 '09 at 12:36
2  
It doesn't matter whether it's marketing or technical reason. The fact is that you can play DX10 games in Win7 whereas you cannot in WinXP (the original question). ANY feature of Win7 could be argued as a marketing reason. Otherwise why wouldn't MS just keep releasing updated apps and drivers for XP until the end of time? – Travis Nov 4 '09 at 16:54
show 3 more comments
feedback
up vote 11 down vote

UpVoting the Aero Snap window management system, and the much better support for dual monitor systems, things that on XP had to be done with third party programs like Ultramon.

link|improve this answer
1  
AeroSnap is a gimmick and not comparable with decent window manager (which happen to work with XP as well). "much better support for dual monitor systems" ... bah, they haven't even managed to clone/extend the taskbar. – Molly7244 Nov 4 '09 at 17:50
2  
I love Aero Snap. It greatly enhances the usability of the OS. – kai Jan 18 '10 at 23:35
I hate Aero Snap. It greatly reduces the usability of the OS. :P – Sasha Chedygov Oct 4 '10 at 5:00
feedback
up vote 8 down vote

Encrypt data on usb drives more securely without additional software using BitLocker.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 8 down vote
  • The new and revamped Accessories applications like Paint (finally something new after Win 3.11 I guess ;) and Calculator (which now has a programmer mode and works so much better). They do get work done a lot faster.
  • Little utilities like the Snipping Tool (which was available in Vista too I know) which just makes my life a little more productive.
  • The revamped taskbar (again, something new after Windows 95). This does improve your productivity as you can manage all the open applications (and tabs/multiple windows) much better.
  • Usability improvements like snap on edges (sides to vertically align windows) which makes working with widescreen monitors just so much easier.
link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 8 down vote

Resizing partitions.

In XP, you had to delete a partition to reallocate space. In Vista/7, you can resize an existing partition to make room for an extra one. Saves you from having to boot into a Linux Live CD.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 6 down vote

Handwriting recognition is considerably improved, especially for foreign languages. Check out this Ink Input article.

link|improve this answer
Did WinXP even have handwriting recognition? I don't recall ever seeing that (It is in Vista, definitely) – dbr Aug 23 '09 at 17:14
1  
XP indeed had handwriting recognition. – Dour High Arch Aug 26 '09 at 3:15
feedback
up vote 5 down vote

IIS 7 is a big one.

link|improve this answer
4  
doesn't affect a typical user – hasen j Jul 28 '09 at 4:31
4  
True, but I didn't see that as a criteria of the question. He is looking specifically for things that "cannot be done on XP". You cannot run IIS7 on XP. – JP Alioto Jul 28 '09 at 5:03
so, IIS7 can't be installed on XP? – hasen j Jul 28 '09 at 5:18
Nope, you can't upgrade IIS, it's bound to the OS – Glenn Slaven Jul 28 '09 at 6:52
"Nope, you can't upgrade IIS, it's bound to the OS" and this is a damn shame! – Tim Büthe Jul 28 '09 at 7:05
show 2 more comments
feedback
up vote 3 down vote

Direct2D and DirectWrite

There's a good article on Direct2D here to whet your appetite.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 3 down vote

BitLocker! very useful when someone tries to use another OS to gain access to the hard drive, with BitLocker the hard drive is encrypted and, therefore, well protected from others accessing it.

link|improve this answer
Did you mean "Bitlocker"? – bk1e Aug 23 '09 at 16:22
No, he meant "BitLocker" :) – Travis Nov 4 '09 at 17:00
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

Multitouch support went from laughable (even in Vista) to pure awesomeness. In particular, the on-screen keyboard allows normal typing (shift+key for example), and multiple fingers + drag around = pan in IE and OneNote - for tablet users this is obvious & natural behavior.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

Changing active sound devices changes where your open programs play sound.

If you're playing a game through speakers, and you plug in a USB headset, the game will start playing through the headset. In XP, you had to close the application completely and restart to achieve the same effect. Now it's very user friendly.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

Move windows over other windows without it looking awful!

Regardless of what you think of Aero's transparency and blur, the fact you can move windows over each other without everything looking awful is a huge plus. You can also check on progress bars and such without switching to the window, which is great for productivity.

Vastly Improved security

In XP (SP3), you can render a system totally unbootable by deleting half of the drivers without the user being so much as prompted. Vista, and 7, permissions were cleaned up so an administrator account can't do this.

link|improve this answer
It erks me that windows feels it knows what files I do and do not want to delete. I don't care about its opinions. If I delete something as administrator, it should go. – RJFalconer Jan 8 '11 at 17:47
@RJFalconer; Actually, it's the opposite. It doesn't know what files you want to delete, and indeed doesn't know if you are actually who you say you are, so it has to treat everything with suspicion. Yes, in The Best Of All Possible Worlds our computers would be magical and read our minds, but we do not live in TBOAPW, thus our computers have to deal with what is actually possible. It's a pity if you feel actually having security personally offends you, but that doesn't make it a bad thing! :) – Phoshi Jan 8 '11 at 21:00
Right, clearly the not being able to delete drivers isn't the main issue, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. It's when windows decides it can't delete a random file elsewhere. Windows simply needs the equivalent of "sudo rm -f". If you think this is impossible, well, that's your opinion. – RJFalconer Jan 11 '11 at 9:54
@RJFalconer; Oh, being unable to delete files in use is a completely seperate issue, and yes, is highly irritating. But that's really more of a fundamental design point than a security issue. – Phoshi Jan 11 '11 at 10:11
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Offline files finally work without any user interaction.

(and it supports delta encoding both ways when using it together with an other W7/Server2008R2 share)

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

This applies to Vista as well as Windows 7, but the addition of the SMBv2 protocol for file sharing is a big one in my book. It's particularly noticeable on gigabit networks. Transferring large files is so much faster when both ends speak SMBv2.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Better driver support for more recent hardware. I cannot count the times I had to slipstream a SATA driver into the XP cd just to get it working.

If you have old hardware just stick with XP.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Automatic switches setting when you connect it to a different display. If you plug in a laptop to a tv with an hdmi cable it will start outputting the audio and switch to the resolution you used last time you plug it in. Also win+p lets you change what display your outputting to.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote -2 down vote

For the 32 bit versions, I believe that Windows 7 (like Vista) makes more optimal use of the maximum 4 GB RAM that is accessible in a 32 bit operating system than XP does..

link|improve this answer
1  
Reference giving evidence? (This seems unlikely an area to put effort into -- and a lot would be needed -- to do such a fundamental change to memory when the focus is on 64bit where this is not an issue.) – Richard Jul 28 '09 at 7:34
If I have understood these matters correctly, (32-bit) XP will report a maximum of a little over 3 GB, whereas Vista and 7 report 4 GB. – Ola Eldøy Jul 28 '09 at 8:26
olaeld, this is incorrect. The latest updates to Windows XP 32-bit allow it to report 4 GB while only actually allowing the computer to use 2 or 3 or whatever is left after video memory, etc. Given that this is what Windows XP already does, I expect Windows 7 32-bit will also report 4 GB while only allowing use of 2-3'ish GB. – ChrisInEdmonton Jul 28 '09 at 12:41
I think this should say that 64bit support is mainstream in vista and windows 7 and not mainstream in XP – Ari Pernick Jul 28 '09 at 15:24
1  
@olaeld, you are correct, Vista with SP1 and Windows 7 do report 4GB when you have 4GB, but the keyword is "report". They still suffer from the 4GB total virtual address space of the 32-bit CPU, so while they might REPORT 4GB, you will find that they are still only able to access (4GB minus address space consumed by other devices). – Graeme Donaldson Aug 23 '09 at 16:39
show 1 more comment
feedback

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.