Windows 7 RC Possibly Due Out May 5

[Guest]

Vista was voted in the top 10 worst OSes ever. 8 out of 10 users don't like... 9 out of 10 experts don't like it.

You can't fight those numbers.
For those claiming people must have an old system, NO. ALL tests show Vista is slower than XP. Fact, not fiction.

 

[Titanius]

Seeing these comments from ChaosGS made me think, hmmm, this is just a kid that probably has ADD or ADHD or is Bipolar and all he wants is to be a thorn in the people's side to get attention. I know about this as I have a brother with the same condition and he will always contradict everything I say or everything I will say.

So let's be mature about this and ignore him, he'll tire himself out once we stop acknowledging him.

 

[coolkev99]

Vista requires *at least* 2gb to run anywhere near "smooth". This alone I find rediculous.

Vista is slower than XP in almost every single benchmark you can throw at it, even loaded up with memory.

UAC nag nightmare.

Tell me how Vista is such a great "upgrade"??

 

[zendax]

[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]I got the OS shortly after it was released (1 month or so)[/citation]

There's the problem right there. No one will disagree Vista was messy when it first came out. By time Service Pack 1 was released however it really is a fine operating system. Yes it uses more system resources, but that seems to be inevitable with any new operating system. RAM is cheap.

Oh, and for the record, I did disable UAC. That's another thing for people to remember. Don't like UAC? Don't want it? Turn it off.

 

[A Stoner]

Anyone know if the serials we got for the beta will work for the RC? I may load it up on my computer and check it out. See if there has been any improvement from the initial beta concering the number of times I have to explicitely tell Windows 7 to execute a command. Might also be interested in trying to set up a network with it to see how easy that is compared to Vista.

 

[rocket_sauce]

Virus troubles through XP made me make the switch to Vista (I screwed up and double-clicked and email attachment). I did everything I could think of (3 days worth of system cleaning)to get rid of it before I reformatted. I am no expert but I'm pretty familiar with my computer. I reinstalled XP but wanted to feel more secure so I went to Vista. Vista feels more secure to me, prettier, I like having the moving desktop and the Aero look. I just really dont like all the extra junk that Vista has. So, its hit and miss with both OS's for me. Better...for most things I would say XP. I haven't run Windows 7 yet, but if its as you guys say, it sounds like it could be the best of both worlds. So, bring it on!!

 

[A Stoner]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]all the newbs just jump on the "hate vista" bandwagon as it seems to be the trend these days. i have had vista 32 and 64 bit on my pc for over 2 years and runs smoothly with no problems or issues.in other words people stop trying to run vista on your pentium 75mhz systems[/citation]
Maybe you should actually take a gander at the boards here, take a moment to reflect and re-evaluate what is the trend. The trend is to bash anyone who does not kneel down at the alter of Windows 7/Vista and proclaim it's complete awesomeness and unfailability. Sorry, I have used both, even with UAC disabled, there are at least two additional checks to every action you want to take, unless you go through the entire system and tweak the living shit out of it so that it no longer asks if you are sure. (at which point you become totally vulnerable to virus)The first check is that a file was downloaded from the internet. Are you sure you want to run it? The second check is that it has not been through windows verification, are you sure you want to run it. A third check is that it wants to make a change to the system, what ever the hell "the system" is, are you sure you want to allow it. And this is with UAC in the completely disabled, computer has been rebooted as instructed, condition. It also has checks for if the programs wants access to the internet. The unfortunate thing is that most of these checks do not come with flags that state, yes this time and forever more. If you want to get that program to run without extra clicks, you have to investigate and search down the setting that will allow it to do so.
The truth is that you are the trend here, not the bashers of Vista/Windows 7. We are the minority, and we are not the cool kids. We have the negative feedback, and the reason is that people like you cannot stand the fact that not everyone agrees with you. People are diferent, get over it. My choice to stick with XP has no effect on your life. My decision to talk about the failures of Microsoft should not harm you in any way, yet you react as if you are in danger, and you MUST protect by attacking anyone with an oppinion other than your own.

 

[The Schnoz]

I installed Windows 7 build 7077 on Friday to see what all the hype was about. I ran into several issues while watching Blu-Ray on WinDVD 9 as well as TotalTheatre Extreme. I didn't notice any speed increase at all and infact the Windows start up took longer than Vista. I reinstalled Vista x64 on Sunday and I'm glad to have it back. I look forward to getting Windows 7 retail, but I love my Vista and I don't give a fuck what anyone says about it. Vista is by far the best operating system I have ever used. I don't care if I lose 1 frame per second while playing Crysis, overall it's Vista FTW.
Intel Q9400 oc'd to 3.55Ghz
Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P
4GB Crucial Dominator at 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
MSI 4890 OC edition (880Mhz)

 

[vaskodogama]

speed:
win 95 > win 98 > win ME > win XP > win Vista!
come on people, vista is fast, even in a system with 2GB of RAM, like mine! sure, XP is faster, but it's the old tech! I prefer to move on with new techs, and when 7 is out, I will upgrade to it!

 

[A Stoner]

[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]I look forward to getting Windows 7 retail, but I love my Vista and I don't give a fuck what anyone says about it. (880Mhz)[/citation]
Wish more people were like you. You got what you like, and who cares.

 

[rooket]

I think I agree with ChaosGS on this but I haven't tried Windows 7 yet so my opinion is biased. Whenever I ask people if they solved the driver issues with older hardware (mainly external USB printers and scanners) people ALWAYS go around the subject and plainly don't answer. So what's it going to be, same thing rehashed? I'm not jumping at it. Windows XP works fine. Vista updates cripple my laptop if I use the hard drive my laptop shipped with. What a pain.

 

[A Stoner]

[citation][nom]vaskodogama[/nom]speed:
win 95 > win 98 > win ME > win XP > win Vista!
come on people, vista is fast, even in a system with 2GB of RAM, like mine! sure, XP is faster, but it's the old tech! I prefer to move on with new techs, and when 7 is out, I will upgrade to it![/citation]

You should check what you just wrote. It looks like you put each version in order of speed. Then in the text section state that XP is faster, but since Vista is newer, it is better. So, one of those is not true. You cannot "say x=9 and y=10 therfore x>y"

 

[tempelife]

Exactly! OSes may become more efficient, but they also get bigger as they have more security, features, and usability. If you put Win 95 on a mainstream computer today it would scream and probably boot in 3 seconds (not counting BIOS post), but you'd have a whole host of issues from support for USB, Raid, Networking, etc. Not to mention massive security flaws and lack of current usable software. Imagine using Netscape 2. Sure fast, but you couldn't view many modern websites with Dynamic HTML, Flash, etc.

Vista was slammed initially and somewhat justified until SP1 was released. Yet the rant and raves never ceased. After SP1 Vista has been great. I've never had a BSOD except trying to OC to 4.0GHZ, but that is to be expected.

So it sounds like many people used 2GB of DDR2 or even worse just DDR. 2GB is what MS says, but why do the bare minimum? 4GB is really the sweet spot. You should really build or buy a beast and doing so isn't that expensive.

I built my machine for just about a grand including monitor, but I you do w/o Raid, Quad Core, and current generation Mobo with basic chassis, the cost is only about $500, which would be faster than a $2000 Mac or some $900 Dell.

My next project is VISTA HTPC build with PVR which includes copy and streaming of encrypted QAM HD using a couple of cablecards (hope my cable company gives them to me, may have to put a fake Dell or HP sticker on my box - yuk!). If anyone care, you can read about it at theGreenButton.com. I'm just tired of the old cable company ripping me off for multiple DVR's and STB's.

Asus M3A78-T
AMD X4 940BE @3.4GHZ w/ OCZ Vendetta2 Cooler pasted w/ Arctic Silver 5
Western Digital WD5000AAKS (4) RAID 10 – 1TB Effective
Patriot Viper 4BG (2x2GB) DDR2-1066MHz @800MHz
OCZ GameXstream 700W PSU
Thermaltake Case Armor+ Mx VH8000BWS
ATI Radeon HD 3300 IGP – non- gamer (good enough for me)
Windows Vista Ultimate x64 SP1
Acer X223Wbd @1680x1050
CPUvid:1.365, NBvid:1.1, DDRvolts:2.0, NBvolts:1.32, HTvolts:1.22, SBvolts:1.3
CPU:200x17, NB:1800MHz,HT:1800MHz, HTmulti:9
Idle:36C, Stressed:41C

 

[Maul555]

Vista is great if you tweak just about every setting. Turn off UAC, Windows Defender, Windows Search, and indexing, then rearrange the start menu and it becomes pretty good.

My latest installation of vista was running fine for a couple of weeks, then a few days ago my HDD utilization went to %100 24/7 and brought the computer to a slow crawl. After doing some research, it was indeed vista services that was screwing the pooch. Also, my game frame rates are lower in vista. You Vista apolagists will get your lesson sooner or later, I guarentee it, just keep using Vista... I cant wait for windows 7.