Is Windows 7 better Then Windows Vista

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
to me xp is still the snappiest with everything installed, im using 7 build 7600 now, but even so its approx 650mb in ram upon first boot, still a good way off xps 75mb, but the features in win7 are really convenient
 
Getting back on topic, and no, I havnt read the whole thread, but I found this link interesting
http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-windows-multicore-273?page=0,1&source=fssr
Since this about an OS, and is obviously SW, we need to seriously take a look at HW, and its direction for future uses/abilities. This link shows how M$ is turning the corner towards multi threading, as that IS the future of HW as seen in multi core cpus, and the manu cored gpus using gpgpu solutions. So, its only natural for SW to follow, and I did read some of this thread, and Im also a gamer, so seeing SW lag behind is nothing new to me. Games barely use MT, and even new games wont bring the immediate DX changes right away, and this is normal.
Adding DRM, Ill point out, is not M$' fault, tho it is our problem, and is one of the major contibuters of us seeing lessor improvements and higher demands from our HW in the last 2 M$ OS'. but again, I cant blame them for this.
As time passes, all this will be forgotten, and we'll be thankful our OS is so well MT'd
 


This thread started going off track by post 8... Bit late to whinge now, hmmm? 'Course I guess you could lock the thread...
 
who let the mindless trolls out of there cages? geez lol

Here are some reminders about your precious OS's all your trolls seem to want to die for:

1: Windows ME without a doubt is the worst OS ever - i just look at it and get application errors 😀

2: Microsoft may have gotten a bit ahead of themselves with vista (and the requirements needed for smooth usage etc) but its not a bad os, i use it at work and at home and the extra features and changes from xp actually benifit me - i can get stuff done faster with Vista - its true.

3: Windows 7 is based on vista - it cant be that much more advanced etc as the latest benchmarks show (vista vs win7 vs xp) - same core etc.

4: XP from day one, although it had "bugs" nothing was broken etc - it did work right out of the box like vista - no major dramas etc, and if anyone remembers, service pack 2 actually added bugs to the system - i had major issues with disablebit (had to disable it) and also had firewire issues etc.

Did anyone learn from the mojave incedent? (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mojave-experiment/) - you trolls remind me of those people.
 

I wasn't being serious, although I probably should have added a smilie. Emotionless text FTL
 
I knew that, just poking a bit of humour your way in my own emotion-less manner...

Totally OT, MS has pretty well confirmed (to me, anyway) that the ONLY price break for we Aussies will be the 'buy a copy of Vista prior to release and get a copy of Win7 cheaper' offer. So once again, we Aussies get shafted. Makes that TAFE job look better...
 


Wouldn't take my CC... Oh well, I'll only fill in for one semester and get one of the lab rats to grade the exams... Unfortunately I still have to be available for 'counselling'...
 
i find it funny people are still whining about vista. the worst thing about vista is it came out as both a 32 and 64 bit os, for those of u who complain about vista try actually running it in 64 bit mode with the proper amount of ram and then tell me which is faster xp 32 bit(64 bit xp is a total mess) or 64 bit vista!!btw i do play games and i have a dual boot with xp and vista home premium 64 bit
 




Idiot doesn't learn - I wholly agree with you on this: Every time you open your mouth, you're getting *real* information shoved down your throat, yet you obviously haven't learned a damned thing. At the very least, I'd have thought you'd have learned to not open your trap.


But, what the hell - Time for another drubbing: How about an official Microsoft document on how to fix compatibility issues: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/appcompat.mspx


Or another Official Microsoft document on how to Troubleshoot Compatibility issues: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/compat/default.mspx This one has a subsection on how to fix driver issues, too. Kind of a bonus plan.

Similar one from Technet: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457026.aspx


Some more: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/884130

Article on Solving XP Compatibility problems: http://windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/windows/2004/11/02/AppCompatibility.html


...and you *still* haven't shown me anything. :pfff:


 
Id point out the whole Active X debacle, and all its unsafe characteristics, and how M$ literally turned off certain functions on xp due to security reasons alone, plus all the patching etc.
Anything new causes problems, requires change, and is why people avoid change, especially when it comes to money.
Never in the history of OS' has any OS ever lasted as long as xp, but today we have DRM, and it requires alot of different things from our HW as well as our SW, and it causes resource loss, bot SW and HW sides, its unavoidable. No ones saying xp isnt finely honed, and extremely efficient etc, but you cant change history.
 
Part of the problem are cheap computers. I still see computers loaded with XP coming in with 256MB of RAM and people attempting to run Norton Antivirus on those computers. I see computers with Vista Basic coming with 512MB of RAM. I'm sorry, but 1GB should be considered bare minimum and 2GB should be considered ideal these days. Anything less than a gig even on XP seems woefully inadequate. Of course, I blame Norton and McAffee for a lot of these problems... most people don't realize the system requirements of antivirus software and just how much it can slow a cheap computer down.
 
If you want the future of IP in whatever form protected, you need DRM. This of course changes the kernel. If SW companies dont want to spend the money to make their apps compatable, thats up to them.
Anything can run on Vista or W7, but if these SW companies wanna slack, it wont.
Just like the billion dollar gaming industry, how many DX10.1 games do you see out? Its easy to do. When DX11 comes, itll even be easier, as the DX9 model already exists, as well as the DX10 model in the DX10 games we already have. Its quite easy to add DX11, but how long, and how many will do so, when their current games are still being sold without a change?
To stick M$ with compatibility issues under this kind of business climate just isnt really looking into it deep enough, because its not Vista or W7 being unable to use these apps/games, its the devs and managers etc refusing to upgrade, and to accuse M$ or any of its OS' ever for this is wrong.
If your clientele is using a particular OS at a 80% rate, it wont be a motive to move to a different OS support, unless its certain clients you really need to keep, or, your just a good company keeping up with the times.
If, however youve boughten into the, "what have you done for us lately?" model of business practices, theyll hedge to upgrade til the very end. Again, not a OS problem, but a business problem.
 
It was merely an adjusted quote from The Office. As for this entire discussion, I find it quite entertaining that your panties are in such a bunch.
 
Some facts? XP is dying. Itll be certified dead in less than 5 years. No hope for it then, tho, Im sure therell be businesses out there still using it, as there are today using 98 and such. All facts. maybe those still using Win 98 said the same things? And still are about xp? Maybe we should all go back to dos, then itll be totally user error to blame, but the os will be stable
 


OS2 2.11 FTW! Native 3270 support, native 5250 support, AS 400 support right out of the box! And a 256 color screen!
 
Point is, I ignore insults, as theyre just opinions, and not fatcsand usually bad ones.
My point is, theres always someone who doesnt adjust to change. I can pull numbers for xps dying cause in gaming if youd like.
I can point out, and pull numbers to xps dying usage because of its inability for current gaming/hw trends by the handfulls if youd like.
I wont sink to insults, if its something I said, point it out, and debate the facts, as insults only waste space
 
Problem is, Im a gamer. And most gamers use their rigs for more than just gaming.
When things start going more and more 64 bit, will you turn to xp64?
And if, and when those apps start running 2+ gigs, what then? And when cpu cores exceed 8 cores , whether thru SMT or physically, and xp makes NO use of them, then what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom