Is Windows 7 better Then Windows Vista

[Scotteq]

Also, Scotteq, Windows XP had way more support when it first came out over the previous OS, wth are talking about?"

What Are You Smoking??? Dude - You seriously need to put the rose colored glasses down.

There are a number of proprietary "professional" applications that don't play nice with Vista or Win7, as a matter of fact there are some which don't really play well with XP either. These programs were frequently written many years ago to address specific needs of certain clients, many of these are data acquisition and analysis programs

...and perhaps you'd care to explain why/how is Microsoft supposed to be responsible for all that ancient stuff?? You know - Apps that Microsoft didn't write?? You don't have a support contract with the guys who wrote the stuff?? You don't have people who are capable of maintaining your custom code?? You don't have a relationship with the company who wrote your apps?? Sounds to me like you don't have a software problem - You have a Management problem. As in "Your Managers are Idiots For Allowing Your Systems To Be That Exposed and That Unsupported"

My company has a couple ancient AS400s running some custom (C!!!) code - Are we to believe that Microsoft is supposed to figure out how to make that run in Windows?? The guy who wrote it DIED 5 YEARS AGO!! It keeps running.... so they keep using it... they've been told "You know.. if this dies, we're all really screwed because there's no replacement..." Yet they turn a blind eye because nobody wants to pony up to replace something that should have been put to bed nearly a decade ago. It's not a software problem. It's a Management problem.


It is an absolute impossibility for any software company to support everything, indefinitely. And it is absolutely Asinine to trot out all the specialized Apps and scream the the OS sucks because it isn't infinitely backwards compatible.


The world has moved on - MSFT are not responsible for catering to your "Special Needs" - Get Over It.

 

[Scotteq]

Here's a few nuggets for you guys:



Intel upgrades to Windows 2000 six months after Windows XP was released:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2002/01/10/intel-chooses-w2k-over-winxp

Sluggish corporate adoption of Windows XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2002/0,4814,74276,00.html

Microsoft offers new licensing terms and other incentives to jump-start stalled corporate XP adoption:
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18821819

Three years after release, XP uptake still too slow:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39151481,00.htm?r=8

Four long years after XP release, more corporate desktops still using Windows 2000:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/XP-May-Catch-Up-to-Win-2000-by-Years-End/




The Corporate and Specialized worlds have *always* done things at their own pace.

 

[N@n0]

@habitat
Dude your seriously biased... im unbiased in the sense of i didn't need to pay for my xp and vista licence, work pays for that thanx to the MSDN partnership, so i have no obligation of staying with vista if it was bad...
As for the "i had one of the first licenses" guess what.. so did i... I had to learn the OS to be able to support our clients, took me a whole week, yes it was sluggish, yes it was on an old celeron, but i saw the potensial.
I went back to XP after i knew most of the main problems and how to fix them.
Waited for SP1 to be released as i did with XP... I accepted that some old app's wouldn't work, but then i had to do the same when i went over to XP back then.

+1 Scotteq

Microsoft admitted that they made a mistake taking so long to release a new OS(vista), people are scared of change, they like routines, XP was just a very long routine, as for the user friendlyness, vista is great, but people are lazy, dont like to read, they like pictures, thats why they like W7, thats why they say its more intuitive.

There is my last 77cents...

 

[N@n0]

The way i obtained my copies only was in response to your "Your probably one of the few that are mad they paid money for Vista".

Did you even read the whole reply? Your biased in that you had a few bad experinces with vista and now its the devil, its bad ect ect.

"And anything is almost more intuitive then Vista."

As i posted, people are lazy and dont like to read or think for themselfs.

As for the whole program support goes. Read scotteq last post last line.

 

[505090]

Looking at this thread I can't wait till win 9 comes out and everyone screams how awesome win 7 is.
O wait i can see a preview above
or when win95 came out
or when xp came out

get over it you'll all end up using it no matter how much you love or hate it. windows owns the market and sadly it's not gonna change anytime soon.

 

[Snowbum]

I still use windows 3.0, everything else can suck my ballz. F***, I cant believe I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading this argument.

 

[Snowbum]

Inspector71:

I recently downloaded W7 rc build 7100. I consider it as a upgrade from Vista x64. The rc runs more efficient, boots quicker, uses less ram, and gaming fps increase (though could be from newer drivers). I liked xp, I liked vista, and I like W7 rc. If you are running Vista, I would suggest downloading W7.

 

[505090]

i got my win 3.14disks floating around some where, but they quit making drivers for it. It really is ridiculous win 3 used a lot less resources, but m$ doesn't want to support their product.

Hey that kid may be retarded but he sure does look like he's having fun.

 

[Snowbum]

Could you kindly explain why you would post a picture that somebody made making fun of a physically retarted looking person? Better yet, how would you find such a picture? I can't find humor in it, no sarcasm, no point in it. Also, there is a difference between debating facts and arguing.

Go to: www.google.com
Search "Arguing on the internet"

You dont even have to click images!! It is a very well known poster.....

With every new windows OS this same argument arrises. It is off-topic in this thread.

 

[anarchy4sale]

Vista was the worst OS that MS has released so far. Look at the video reviews from Bill Gates, he almost denies Vista's existence.

Everybody was disapointed. As ahslan has said, Windows 7 is a Vista that works somewhat correctly. Surprisingly, XP still has more support overall if I am not mistaken. Vista just has more memory support which means nothing since the OS itself has performance issues. Sure, Windows 7 is an improvement but nobody trusts MS no more since Vista came out. As far as software support is concerned, nobody cares at this point.

Otherwise, XP wouldn't be selling at a good retail value.

To answer the initial question, performance is better, the interface is cleaned up, as far as support goes, that is not clear.

XP SP2 is going to be around for quite a while, get use to it.

Actually Windows ME is the worse release to date.

 

[croc]

It's always great to see when people go to extremes and exaggerate things in a debate. This usually means their feelings are hurt or they feel they have lost something, but the results are, a smart person learns from it, a moron (a real retard) doesn't.

I'm out of here...

Sawadee, suh...

Don't let the door slap you in the butt on the way out.

 

[the zipster]

Whine and Cry Piss and Moan. Geez! Don't any of you guys read? MS told you to run Vista your machine needed to be 10x the machine needed to run XP, win 7 is even more demanding. Maybe you should take a note here:.... I found, beside a dumpster, a PowerSpec boat anchor with a ECS P4M800PRO-M v2.0 MB... otherwise it was gutted I took pulls and made a box with Socket 478 dual core 2.0 Ghz , 2GB ram, 40GB sata, and 100& 120 GB IDE drives. I put Vista Ultimate on the 120GB, XP sp3 on the 100GB, and Windows 7 on the 40GB sata. I am using the integrated S3 video. My ONLY problem is that WIN 7 does not load a Driver for the Realtec AC'97 audio, other wise it runs smooth as silk on ALL the OS's!?!? No glitches, no freezes, no hangs, EVER. Vista and Win 7 are really fussy about using integrated video, they like a nice video card to do all the graphics work and this is BECAUSE? they do not like to share memory! Yet if you know how, and obviously I do, you can make it work nicely. It is more about tweaking settings than anything lads, take it from a guy who spent 7 years of his life helping to invent the Internet for the Department of Defense. Get compatible hardware if you want to do gaming and other high end applications, but both Vista and win7 work just fine for me on this old discard. Now I am off to make a driver for the sound in win 7 for my old boat anchor motherboard and when I am finished I am going to run tomb raider revelation on win 7 LOL! BTW my total cost for this machine and all the software was under $30.00 eat your hearts out newbies.

 

[Scotteq]

....And was does Scotteq's last comment refer to? The terrible OS's that have been released recently or the companies that are losing sales because these OS's don't play nicely with compatibility?

Either way, he contradicted his own links by putting that. The articles say that they weren't doing because of customers sales. They weren't going at their own rate, people just didn't want to buy the Windows XP. They wouldn't want and try to make more sales if they were going at their own rate.

Fixed...


"Released Recently"!?!? You clearly didn't even read the titles. They're articles about Windows XP - Slow adoption rates. How - Years after release - it's market share wasn't what MSFT wanted. There's even quotes in there from IT pros saying they won't upgrade because they don't see the value.

Sound familiar? It should. It goes directly against your assertions that the OS was awesome at release, and directly supports mine that it wasn't "All That".

 

[Zoron]

Perfect example of someone that believes every negative nugget someone posts about MS on the internet:

"I haven't personally tried this product, but there are plenty of people that (are supposed to) know what they're doing that had something bad to say about Vista. Therefore, Vista is the worst Windows OS to date."

I'm sorry, your opinion carries no more weight with me than Scotteq's carries with you. My opinion of Vista is the only opinion that matters to me... you know since I actually use it on a daily basis and therefore that qualifies me to have an opinion of Vista. If you haven't used it, you're just regurgitating what you've read elsewhere... and that isn't an honest opinion... it's speculation based on other opinions.

Scott is also spot on about Windows XP. There were a huge amount of people that complained their printer or scanner didn't work anymore. Many complained that their games didn't work or ran more slowly with XP than they did with 98 or even 2000. XP's adoption rate was slow... especially in the banking sector. So far RBC, Bank of Nova Scotia and TD are using Windows XP. CIBC still uses Windows 2000. Scotia Bank just upgraded last year while the others started using it less recently... but still not that long ago. Certainly not until at least 3 years after XP's release. Slow corporate adoption of a new Windows OS is not a huge surprise... and I don't expect to see them migrate to Vista until next year at the earliest. This is by no means any indication of how good or bad an OS is... it's just a reflection of how long it takes to develop and test the new platforms to make sure they will work as flawlessly as possible in their environment(s).

Am I saying Vista is 100% compatible with old or custom software. No. I don't expect it to be and neither should you. Custom software is always an issue because it's extremely slow to be updated... sometimes it's never updated. To expect every subsequent version of Windows to be compatible with it is absurd.

 

[inspector71]

I suppose Windows Me was the best?

Lol! thats a good one

 

[chunkymonster]

Also, I'm not too sure about Windows 7 since I didn't bother to check the support for it, but by the looks of things, it's not doing so well.

Let me put this way then. Vista was terrible and Windows 7 is a candy coated version of it with even more added features.

Dude, got issues? How's that axe grinding coming along?

I'm gathering from your anti-Win7 rants that you haven't installed and tried the beta or RC of Win7. And, if you did and still feel the way you do it's then painfully obvious you fail to realize that Win7 is still an RC/beta and not the polished retial/consumer version. So duh! Of course support is going to be sketchy and sporadic.

As far as your complaint about support for proprietary "professional" enterprise software, c'mon, get real, since when does any large company actively upgrade their desktop environments?! Heck, the place I work for didn't upgrade from Win2K to Xp until 2008! And with that, they spent 2 years testing and re-testing to ensure compatibility with legacy/proprietary/business critical applications.

 

[Zoron]

That's the way it is, Chunky... most of the loudest critics of Vista on these forums have never actually given it a fair shakedown of their own; instead they regurgitate other's opinions and state it as gospel fact. Now before the ones that actually have tried Vista jump all over my back, I did say MOST not ALL.

A lot of people have a lot of unrealistic expectations every time there is a new release of Windows. A lot of people seem to think that because the new OS doesn't support their 10 year-old this or 5 year-old that that makes it a bad OS. For some reason, the software and hardware vendors are completely off the hook for compatibility issues... it's all Microsoft's fault.

"Microsoft didn't thoroughly test my heavily customized business app that is absolutely critical for my business, damnit!" Well of course they didn't. Do you know how many years it would take to release a new Windows if Microsoft had to make sure it worked with every single piece of software in the corporate environment? Windows XP would have been delayed another 5 years if that was the case. It's time to hold your hardware and software vendors responsible for updating their software and drivers to be compatible... don't expect MS to do everyone else's work for them.

Besides, a lot of software compatibility shouldn't be an issue with XP mode. No, it won't run games, but it will run older legacy software that wouldn't run on Vista, but ran on XP.

 

[505090]

fools your all fools dos is where it's at. what do you need a a bloated gui for anyway? or has typing become a lost art?

 

[Zoron]

I do have DOSBox on my laptop....

 

[505090]

still playing doom and wolfenstein

 

[badge]

Best example of the bugs included to an XP installation with with no service packs so far today.

Sure, sp3 is available but most people don't need it. I personally would stay with no service pack but due to the inability for most programs to work they require at least sp2.

 

[badge]

Without SP2 Windows XP would have no 'Security Center'. An XP installation without XP2 would not have a chance of surviving as someone already mentioned. Also, Windows XP was released before SATA hard drives became available. SP2 gave XP the ability to install a SATA HD without using a floppy disk at the F6 prompt to load the SATA driver. Other items of interest XP was released without because they were not invented yet , PCIE, USB 2.0, DDR2, etc. Windows XP is essentially a giant patch from yesteryear.

 

[badge]

XP 2002 w/out an SP installed very nicely thank you. As far as your "Not have a chance" comment. Riiiight... Third party security programs were created for no reason then?

Your last comment should have been, Windows XP is something they should have refined likewise in comparison to the p3/Core duo.

You are defending a now weak OS that uses lame resources like Prefetch to control important hardware like system RAM. Like others have told you in this thread, you can not even install Vista and make it work. Uninstalling Vista and going back to XP because of you're lack of skill is where you are at currently. It will not be long before you will either look pretty silly sitting there with your hot Windows XP machines or you will be forced to move on to a modern OS. My son could load up Windows XP sitting on my lap with wet diapers. I think the people at MS realize that much.

Edit for Writer embellishments.

 

[DeeTee_uk]

To the OP (remember him?):

I personally really like Windows 7. I normally leave a new MS OS until it's had at least one service pack, but I've actually pre-ordered this one. I've never done that. I have seen quite a few reports of people getting improved framerates over Vista, as it appears that 7 is better at using the resources available to it. I'm quite surprised you've heard that it's worse than Vista, as the general feeling seems to be the opposite.
However, the thing to remember is it's up to you. If you have Vista, and still like it, there's no desperate need for you to switch. I do see the possibility of Vista being allowed to quietly die in the manner of Windows Me, but that won't be any sort of issue for you for quite some time.

 

[badge]

I failed to mention you are in a Windows 7 forum going on about XP. I don't know, what is it that makes you so special?