Windows 7 or Vista?

[win7man]

As far as they are concerned, there are no issues. What are you talking about?

for the most part, no they aren't, im saying though, that if there is, it will be with xp stuff, nto vista, cuz there will not be any issues with vista hardware/software

 

[win7man]

perhaps, and i get what ur saying with xp going to be the one that gets compatibility issues, the only problem is, if ppl don't upgrade to 7, and stick with xp, and xp holds the market share, then developers will need to support xp to service, and vista/windows 7, so that's the problem, were when ppl will upgrade to 7 then those few xp ppl will run into problems, its really anyone's guess as to what will happen

 

[medjohnson77]

As far as they are concerned, there are no issues. What are you talking about?

All I see is a bunch of "It's going to get better", "64 bit is where it's at", "64 bit is a lot better", "64 is the future" when you really think about it, all it did was make the Os's security a little better at stock setup.

Then your not seeing all the words that are on your screen. It has been made very clear in other threads(that have been locked by mods) that given the right hardware, Quad cores, 6 gb of ram, large improvements have been made, from XP, to Vista 64 bit to Window 7 64 bit. Burning, Cad programs, inroute software, CNC routers, and other software that Croc gave times on in each OS that he ran on in all three OS. Showing that Vista 64 and Windows 7 64 take advantage of newer hardware, bringing more to the table then just improved security at stock setup. Gamers also see new GPUs coming and the improvements in tech that they offer, with Vista and Windows 7. Its that simple

Yes Hab, that is correct Vista and Windows 7 64 bit does run them, and does so very well.

And when I built my first rig, XP 64 bit was around $164 I believe, and Vista 64 bit was only $100 so I saved money going with Vista 64 bit. I guess I can thank all the haters who dogged it from day one, because it looks like you guys brought the price down to a reasonable amount.

 

[win7man]

lol, i guess i kinda get what ur saying habitat87, and it dose make me laugh to, but who pacifically r u talking to?

 

[croc]

And you had to quote my entire post for that? Whats so hard about that?

$5000 Printer = http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Designjet/1/storefronts/Q6677A%2523BCC
Fact: Win7 faster on an older computer = uh, I did this in my home. Want to come over?
Fact: UAC on vista sucks. = use google. Complaints before vista was released. Look at the posts on this site about "disable UAC"
- Show me where it's against the law to not like Vista.
- Halo2 doesn't work on XP. Look at the requirements. DUH
- Speedboost? Stick a slow USB key to help "boost" vista? DUH! This has been proven on various websites... yeah, Speed Boosts helps if you have 512~1GB of RAM... but that adding 1~2GB of internal RAM was easily faster and cheaper. Hence, cheap $300~350 computers (desktop or notebooks) include 2~3GB of RAM. Simple fact, look it up. go to bestbuy.com
- Vista eats about 10GB of HD space... thats bloat.
- Windows owns over 90% of the PC market, what part of that is BS? use google.com , I've heard its a pretty good site.

What? MS-DOS was good? In what world? Its a reverse engineered version of the 70's CP/M OS. (3 facts in that one)

Whats BS about my opinion of Win7? Are you saying I shouldn't want to buy it?

Steve Ballmer is a monkey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc (But I guess if I was a multi-billionaire, I could be a monkey too)

You have your opinions I gather, but facts are facts.

I hate Vista & like Windows 7 is a fact. You like/love Vista is a fact. Our feelings about this products are opinions.
With many many people having the opinion of NOT liking Vista is a FACT. Vista bloat / performance issues is easily proven by the FACT that you can some-what easily buy WinXP on computers today, not just Netbooks. Oh and that Netbooks run ok with XP but crumble under Vista is a fact. You have people hacking MacOS to run on netbooks.

How does someone using Linux or MacOS hurt you? Whats the BS in that?

Enjoy your Gundam.

Here's the link for the Vista 64 bit drivers for that printer:

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=3204966&prodTypeId=18972&prodSeriesId=3204963&swLang=8&taskId=135&swEnvOID=2100

 

[medjohnson77]

Well with Crocs example it took XP 30 mins to complete a file, Vista around 15min, windows 7 only 10 min. So if your doing that more then once a day I would say a 50-60% speed increase is very productive, and is real world reality.

Further more I am not just pulling opinions out of my arse, when I go to burn a 4gb file to disc, and Vista 64 does it faster then XP by 35-50% which I have seen first hand, once again I would say that is a very large improvement when done on the same hardware specs. If you haven't built a computer lately with some of the new processors, hardrives, Raid 0 set ups, SSD drives, more then 3 gb of ram and a 64 bit OS, then your not going to get what is being said until you see it for yourself.

If you don't like mircosoft for personal reasons, then don't buy there software. You have that right. Stay with XP if you like it, if it works for you then great.

However there are some users who have invested in to new hardware that performs smoother, faster, on Vista and Windows 7 then on older OS. with older hardware or even the same hardware.

 

[betaman]

One thing I noticed is that Windows 7 (both Beta and the current RC) seem to run Internet Explorer 8 more reliably. I have seen tons of XP and Vista PCs that balk trying to hit a Google or MSN or Yahoo page. IE8 offers to resolve the "problem" and after a simple refresh the page shows. Now you have to cancel the "problem solving" wizard! Yuckk! But with 7 I have yet to see that happen even once. It definitely understands IE8 better than Vista.

 

[croc]

Yeah, then you got people with their cheap quad cores all confused why the next best thing isn't going to help their gaming all that much...

I would go AMD cause at least they play fair and and non dirty, but you got to admit, Intel gave us a good product and they kind of messed up by making it too good so I can understand them trying to slow things down a bit. Whether or not they were making quads to for a marketing scheme.

I'd have to say that MS messed up really bad and Google really does have a chance to make something good that works. Hey, it might not be that advanced but it'll be secure, quick and simple at first. What most people with a computer need anyways.

Don't be the person that's confused as to why the person with an overclocked dual core with dual graphics for under 600 dollars total is getting better gameplay. It's just better hardware selection is all. That's just stupid at this point with all these reviews and threads. Ignorance would be a legit excuse at this point. That's how bad it's gotten.

And listen to yourself. 30 mins vs 15 mins vs 10 for BURNING A DISK. Okay, fine. Think about that, how productive does a computer have to be to burn several disks in a day to be productive? It's funny and almost comical trying to reason with what you just commented on.

Most games are GPU bottle-necked, up to a point. At 25x18 res, then it takes both very good GPU's and a beefy CPU to cope. Some games are just CPU bound outright. FSX is a case in point. What's your framerate in FSX?

 

[medjohnson77]

I have both, Dual and Quad core set ups, overclocked and with dual grafix cards, and water cooling, both work well however I don't game on my dual core any more, because my main system that is a Quad at 3.6 ghz just runs better. I have to laugh at your statement however,

"Don't be the person that's confused as to why the person with an overclocked dual core with dual graphics for under 600 dollars total is getting better gameplay"

because I had around $1100 dollars into my first build, and I doubt a person that spent $600 dollars on there rig is getting better gaming experience out of it then my dual core build at 3.4ghz.

I hope google does make a better OS, as I hope that any company that can produce a better product does so because of advancement between more then two companys gives a better chance of all of us getting something better, for less money out of our pockets.

 

[medjohnson77]

One thing I noticed is that Windows 7 (both Beta and the current RC) seem to run Internet Explorer 8 more reliably. I have seen tons of XP and Vista PCs that balk trying to hit a Google or MSN or Yahoo page. IE8 offers to resolve the "problem" and after a simple refresh the page shows. Now you have to cancel the "problem solving" wizard! Yuckk! But with 7 I have yet to see that happen even once. It definitely understands IE8 better than Vista.

Well Not that I do not like Vista, because I do like it. Today was the first time I booted Vista in a week, and I only did to update and run defender. I find myself running Windows 7 all the time now. On the 939 socket build we just put windows 7 32 bit and it has Vista 64 bit on it also, but we are running Windows 7 full time. If the price is decent, which I have heard MS is giving a family plan, up to three computers in the same house, for around $150 I will be picking it up when it comes out in Oct.

 

[medjohnson77]

Most games are GPU bottle-necked, up to a point. At 25x18 res, then it takes both very good GPU's and a beefy CPU to cope. Some games are just CPU bound outright. FSX is a case in point. What's your framerate in FSX?

I was going to bring that point up with FSX croc, but people who run that game are not normal!!!!

Anyone who has played that on a Dual core, and a Quad core with crossfire or SLI knows that there cheap Quad is the best choice for good game play.

 

[medjohnson77]

Here is a clue, not that your going to get it, but here we go once again, this is a thread were the OP asks peoples opinions, Vista or Windows 7. The thread is not XP or Vista or Windows 7. There seems to be one constint in your line of big thinking, you have XP your brain 24/7, and you must feel like you have to convert anyone who thinks other OS are better choice for what they do with there computers. You bring forth very little in truth regarding were Vista is at today, and try to spread the bad of Vista the first few months when it was released.

Your a smart guy right, I have stated the specs on all five of my builds several times, and not that it matters but I OC my 6400 B.E past 3.5 but bumped it back down givent the fact that I didn't feel like it needed to be past 3.4ghz and it is now my girlfriend full time rig and on Air cooling.

Before yet another Thread gets locked by the mods, I leave this thread to you, even though you don't belong here posting in it, given you have nothing real to add to a Vista vs Windows 7 thread, only your warped point of view on how bad Vista is and that Windows 7 might have the same problems as Vista does, and IMO its all in your head.

Have fun with your XP and your $600 dollar dual core OC to 8 ghz so you can play FSX and still not have a very good gaming experience. :lol:

 

[randomizer]

The old thread got locked for the same reason this one is being locked: you lot seem to feel the need to argue the same thing in every thread for pages and pages. The OP asked about Vista and Win 7, then asked if there were "mods" for making those OSs look similar to XP. Suddenly we're debating Vista vs XP again!