- Status
[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]Did you use Vista when it first came out and before the Service Packs? Vista might be better now but it was rather bad at first. I had to deal with Vista a lot when ti first came out and I hated it, I jumped to Windows 7 as soon a the beta was released and never went back.[/citation]
No, but I used XP from day 1. It was horrible due to driver issues, but was eventually patched into shape. I learned a lesson, and the memory of that fiasco helped me wait for Vista to be patched. If you used windows7 since beta, then you should well remember that problems surrounded it at launch. Now it's patched, and is good too.
No, but I used XP from day 1. It was horrible due to driver issues, but was eventually patched into shape. I learned a lesson, and the memory of that fiasco helped me wait for Vista to be patched. If you used windows7 since beta, then you should well remember that problems surrounded it at launch. Now it's patched, and is good too.
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
sounds good , i jsut sitched to win 7 64 bit from win xp 32 bit .. my only question is how come every time i update to service pack 1 , it kills my interenet connection 
it does this every time i try to update it pre service pack 1 internet acess is fine and great , but imediately upon installing Sp1 in no longer can get on the internet ... MS needs to fix this crap.
it does this every time i try to update it pre service pack 1 internet acess is fine and great , but imediately upon installing Sp1 in no longer can get on the internet ... MS needs to fix this crap.demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]kish20[/nom]Hopefully MS will not regret doing this. This makes it even less compelling for customers to migrate to the shiny new Win 8 later this year![/citation]
i doubt ANY thing lower my interest in win 8 any further than it is already lowered
i doubt ANY thing lower my interest in win 8 any further than it is already lowered
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]I understand how it feels. But seriously, ask most posters who said Vista sucked, and I bet ya some of them have never even tried Vista, with SP or not.[/citation]
The biggest problem with windows Vista, aside from driver support, was the system requirements. You needed a minimum of 2gb or ram to run productivity apps, 4gb for gaming and editing apps.
On top of that most of Vista OEM installs were for the 32bit, which was garbage due to kernel memory crashing when you maxed your ram.
Most computers that ran either XP or 2K didn't have the hardware to run the OS and programs. Computers that were being sold with Vista only had between 1gb and 2gb of ram and were spec'ed the same for XP based systems.
Vista's public support tanked and with Windows 7 development underway, they slimmed it down and refocused the UI, but the main thing that helped give Windows 7 a life was that the computers being more powerful themselves.
There is very little difference between Vista x64 and Windows 7x64 if you put them on the same hardware.
Vista x86 vs Windows 7x64 is a different story.
The biggest problem with windows Vista, aside from driver support, was the system requirements. You needed a minimum of 2gb or ram to run productivity apps, 4gb for gaming and editing apps.
On top of that most of Vista OEM installs were for the 32bit, which was garbage due to kernel memory crashing when you maxed your ram.
Most computers that ran either XP or 2K didn't have the hardware to run the OS and programs. Computers that were being sold with Vista only had between 1gb and 2gb of ram and were spec'ed the same for XP based systems.
Vista's public support tanked and with Windows 7 development underway, they slimmed it down and refocused the UI, but the main thing that helped give Windows 7 a life was that the computers being more powerful themselves.
There is very little difference between Vista x64 and Windows 7x64 if you put them on the same hardware.
Vista x86 vs Windows 7x64 is a different story.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]I understand how it feels. But seriously, ask most posters who said Vista sucked, and I bet ya some of them have never even tried Vista, with SP or not.[/citation]
I think it's accurate to say that Vista sucked, speaking from personal experience with it. It would be less accurate to say that Vista still sucks. I like Server 2008r2 the most, it is faster than any of the other modern Windows operating systems and it uses the least resources. Only XP and Server 2003 can beat it there, but it is newer and has better compatibility and support for newer hardware and other stuff.
I'm looking forward to the server version of Windows 8. Of course, Metro will be disabled one way or another if it's included in the server version, but that's pretty much my only serious problem with Windows 8.
I really like it's new task manager and greater performance/less memory overhead.
I think it's accurate to say that Vista sucked, speaking from personal experience with it. It would be less accurate to say that Vista still sucks. I like Server 2008r2 the most, it is faster than any of the other modern Windows operating systems and it uses the least resources. Only XP and Server 2003 can beat it there, but it is newer and has better compatibility and support for newer hardware and other stuff.
I'm looking forward to the server version of Windows 8. Of course, Metro will be disabled one way or another if it's included in the server version, but that's pretty much my only serious problem with Windows 8.
I really like it's new task manager and greater performance/less memory overhead.
[citation][nom]kish20[/nom]Hopefully MS will not regret doing this. This makes it even less compelling for customers to migrate to the shiny new Win 8 later this year![/citation]
windows 8 is mostly for tablets and phones, and with intel getting in on the action, porting it to a reall pc was easy enough, so why not?
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]I really don't get why people are so tied to their OS. XP was good, Vista was acceptable after SP2, 7 has been awesome, and 8 Dev has been great as well (cant wait for Beta!). I tend to hit every 2nd version of the OS for my personal home network (98SE, XP, 7, ...9?), but once an OS is more than 5 years old then generally my computers are new enough to take advantage of the features/stability of a newer OS. Granted 7 has been rock stable (unlike previous versions)... so will I have reason to move to 9 when it becomes available? I guess only time will tell.[/citation]
i only moved to windows 7 because of 64bit and i got an ssd, so its good for that. if that wasnt the case i would still be on windows xp.
and everyone tells me windows 7 is better... well... i want to move a file form one folder to another, i drag the file and i drop it into the new folder... where did my file go??? oh no, i droped it 1000 pixles away from the name of a zip, and it decided to dump it into the zip...
this is just 1 one of the things i despise about windows 7, it forces me to full screen explorer to drag and drop files, its bad enough that it does this crap by default, but when i asked in the forum about it, all i was told is to use a 3rd part application to move files... so... are you telling me windows 7 is broken and i have to go to another company for support that should be in the os by default?
lets also not forget that .gif animation is not supported by the os anymore, and i need a 3rd part application for that, but i don't like any application i have yet to find, and prefer the default viewer that was in xp.
yea, if 64bit and ssds were supported well in xp, i would have gotten a 64bit xp os instead of 7, because they are going backwards with each os in functionality. that said, im on day 27 of no restarting my computer... thats nice... but than windows 7 takes up 2gb ish of ram, and im running out of my 8gb constantly...
windows 8 is mostly for tablets and phones, and with intel getting in on the action, porting it to a reall pc was easy enough, so why not?
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]I really don't get why people are so tied to their OS. XP was good, Vista was acceptable after SP2, 7 has been awesome, and 8 Dev has been great as well (cant wait for Beta!). I tend to hit every 2nd version of the OS for my personal home network (98SE, XP, 7, ...9?), but once an OS is more than 5 years old then generally my computers are new enough to take advantage of the features/stability of a newer OS. Granted 7 has been rock stable (unlike previous versions)... so will I have reason to move to 9 when it becomes available? I guess only time will tell.[/citation]
i only moved to windows 7 because of 64bit and i got an ssd, so its good for that. if that wasnt the case i would still be on windows xp.
and everyone tells me windows 7 is better... well... i want to move a file form one folder to another, i drag the file and i drop it into the new folder... where did my file go??? oh no, i droped it 1000 pixles away from the name of a zip, and it decided to dump it into the zip...
this is just 1 one of the things i despise about windows 7, it forces me to full screen explorer to drag and drop files, its bad enough that it does this crap by default, but when i asked in the forum about it, all i was told is to use a 3rd part application to move files... so... are you telling me windows 7 is broken and i have to go to another company for support that should be in the os by default?
lets also not forget that .gif animation is not supported by the os anymore, and i need a 3rd part application for that, but i don't like any application i have yet to find, and prefer the default viewer that was in xp.
yea, if 64bit and ssds were supported well in xp, i would have gotten a 64bit xp os instead of 7, because they are going backwards with each os in functionality. that said, im on day 27 of no restarting my computer... thats nice... but than windows 7 takes up 2gb ish of ram, and im running out of my 8gb constantly...
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 7
- 43,265
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]windows 8 is mostly for tablets and phones, and with intel getting in on the action, porting it to a reall pc was easy enough, so why not?i only moved to windows 7 because of 64bit and i got an ssd, so its good for that. if that wasnt the case i would still be on windows xp.and everyone tells me windows 7 is better... well... i want to move a file form one folder to another, i drag the file and i drop it into the new folder... where did my file go??? oh no, i droped it 1000 pixles away from the name of a zip, and it decided to dump it into the zip... this is just 1 one of the things i despise about windows 7, it forces me to full screen explorer to drag and drop files, its bad enough that it does this crap by default, but when i asked in the forum about it, all i was told is to use a 3rd part application to move files... so... are you telling me windows 7 is broken and i have to go to another company for support that should be in the os by default? lets also not forget that .gif animation is not supported by the os anymore, and i need a 3rd part application for that, but i don't like any application i have yet to find, and prefer the default viewer that was in xp.yea, if 64bit and ssds were supported well in xp, i would have gotten a 64bit xp os instead of 7, because they are going backwards with each os in functionality. that said, im on day 27 of no restarting my computer... thats nice... but than windows 7 takes up 2gb ish of ram, and im running out of my 8gb constantly...[/citation]
Vista was a much bigger memory hog than 7 and I managed to have over a hundred tabs open in web browsers with only 2GB of memory, how are you using over 2GB out of 8GB, let alone running out of it, unless you are doing some serious work that would take something like an optimized XP just to shave off a few percent of memory usage?
I gotta tell you, 7 uses less than 1GB for system memory. Now this is pretty bad compared to XP, but with 8GB that means you are using more than 7GB for other things, unless you have a serious problem(s) with your computer. Even x64 Windows 7 uses way less than 2GB of memory.
Besides that, 1000 pixels? that's a huge distance, way larger than possible for your problem unless, again, you have a serious problem with your PC. I have never had any problems with dragging and dropping stuff with multiple Explorer windows on my machine, and it is running at 1024/768@60Hz right now.
Yes, Windows 7 has some problems and a few missing features that are present in Windows XP, but the problems you have listed are ridiculous, speaking from my experience.
If you are having such serious problems then maybe you could try Server 2008r2. I have it, it's almost as light as XP, and I like it much better than 7. It is most certainly far faster than 7 and XP, especially in multi-tasking and large tasks.
Vista was a much bigger memory hog than 7 and I managed to have over a hundred tabs open in web browsers with only 2GB of memory, how are you using over 2GB out of 8GB, let alone running out of it, unless you are doing some serious work that would take something like an optimized XP just to shave off a few percent of memory usage?
I gotta tell you, 7 uses less than 1GB for system memory. Now this is pretty bad compared to XP, but with 8GB that means you are using more than 7GB for other things, unless you have a serious problem(s) with your computer. Even x64 Windows 7 uses way less than 2GB of memory.
Besides that, 1000 pixels? that's a huge distance, way larger than possible for your problem unless, again, you have a serious problem with your PC. I have never had any problems with dragging and dropping stuff with multiple Explorer windows on my machine, and it is running at 1024/768@60Hz right now.
Yes, Windows 7 has some problems and a few missing features that are present in Windows XP, but the problems you have listed are ridiculous, speaking from my experience.
If you are having such serious problems then maybe you could try Server 2008r2. I have it, it's almost as light as XP, and I like it much better than 7. It is most certainly far faster than 7 and XP, especially in multi-tasking and large tasks.
brythespy
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2011
- 330
- 0
- 18,810
So... 2 more years of support for XP can I see SP4?
I love windows 7 and all of it's features but windows XP is much more capable for gaming on ancient hardware since the OS is much smaller than windows 7. like using only 50MB of memory to run at the least. and able to install it and run normally on a 5GB partition. Long live XP!
I love windows 7 and all of it's features but windows XP is much more capable for gaming on ancient hardware since the OS is much smaller than windows 7. like using only 50MB of memory to run at the least. and able to install it and run normally on a 5GB partition. Long live XP!
[citation][nom]gbean02[/nom]No, but I used XP from day 1. It was horrible due to driver issues, but was eventually patched into shape. I learned a lesson, and the memory of that fiasco helped me wait for Vista to be patched. If you used windows7 since beta, then you should well remember that problems surrounded it at launch. Now it's patched, and is good too.[/citation]
I never had problems with Windows 7, it worked fine from the beta for me, much less problems then Vista. The difference between XP and Vista IS Windows 7, people had either Windows 2k or Windows XP back then no real other choice, but with Vista you still had XP and you very soon after had a much more stable Windows 7. Vista never stood a chance like XP did, I know Vista is much more stable now, but why would I use it when I can use Windows 7?
I never had problems with Windows 7, it worked fine from the beta for me, much less problems then Vista. The difference between XP and Vista IS Windows 7, people had either Windows 2k or Windows XP back then no real other choice, but with Vista you still had XP and you very soon after had a much more stable Windows 7. Vista never stood a chance like XP did, I know Vista is much more stable now, but why would I use it when I can use Windows 7?
I had Vista when it first came out... no problems. I've installed updates for others... fully updated, no problems. Sure it got better later, for some... but most of the initial problems have been acknowledged to have been caused by lack of third party vendor driver support. I've not run into that problem so Vista worked fine for me and others from the beginning. Vista was not 'that bad'... and not searching out driver updates, etc... makes that operator error. So with 7, MS made an effort to drag other vendors into development early... a better Vista, maybe, but Vista worked fine for many, many users. Don't feed the trolls... or complaints sans diligence.
On the MS website under support they show Windows 7 ends Jan 2015, and they show extended support end 2020 so extended support is free?
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/default.aspx?sort=PN&alpha=Windows+7&Filter=FilterNO
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/default.aspx?sort=PN&alpha=Windows+7&Filter=FilterNO
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 5
-
Question Laptop Crashing During Teams Calls or Video Editing in Premiere
- Started by bigdumbalski
- Replies: 1
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Started by PizzaInGame
- Replies: 7
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram