- Status
I guess the 'slow grind' is only there because there are no new pc's on the market anymore with xp! 😀
There, said it! lol!
I think 7 is great and all, but a lot of the OS is not necessary for the business man, and the desktop/notebook owner.
I think they should make a business version that's extreme light, a home owner's version that's like the premium, and an IT version that is like the ultimate.
The extreme light version would be good for me, if it takes all benefits of XP AND 7 together without any drawbacks.
At the moment 7 has too many drawbacks over XP for net and notebooks in the power requirements.
Any OS that has less than 30 minutes of battery compared with XP, is not really an improvement to me!
Just downloading Opensuse 11.2 for my dual boot PC and I also will keep WinXp at least until Win 7 reach sp1. Almost all friends and co-workers who jumped on Vista wagon when it hit the stores regretted it. It is true that Win7 RC looks and feels stable and all but safe is safe...
It is true that for most people XP fulfills all their needs. Win7, just as Vista will get bought mostly because you don't need that much to do your every-day tasks. Added to that, very few people actually upgrade their OS. Most, just get the new one when they buy a new computer.
But, for all the people who talk about slow adaptation of Vista, I would be very surprised if XP usage 2 years after its release was all that much higher than Vista (maybe say 40% 2 years after versus 30% for vista). If you add to the fact that XP was helped by the fact that it was replacing far inferior OS's than Vista and Win7 are, and all the new OS usage numbers start looking perfectly normal, and not a result of something horrid going on with Vista or Win7.
But, for all the people who talk about slow adaptation of Vista, I would be very surprised if XP usage 2 years after its release was all that much higher than Vista (maybe say 40% 2 years after versus 30% for vista). If you add to the fact that XP was helped by the fact that it was replacing far inferior OS's than Vista and Win7 are, and all the new OS usage numbers start looking perfectly normal, and not a result of something horrid going on with Vista or Win7.
I just could not see myself running that old of a OS like XP. What is it 8 or 9 years old? WOW that's old in computer time. But I guess if you have older hardware and cannot afford to buy a new computer. I guess a person's better off sticking with XP. I put Windows 7 premium on my Lenovo S10 because I could not stand XP. So I guess I am the opposite I want the latest.
Fireball455
Distinguished
- Jan 18, 2006
- 15
- 0
- 18,510
It is not ironic that Win7 sales are coming at the expense of Vista sales. 7 is not that big of a change from Vista. And, as quickly as M$ put out 7, since Vista, it seems likely that 7 is really Vista SP2. Also, people who own machines that can run Vista well are much more likely to get 7. If you have older machines, as I do, 7 is too slow. It is pretty, but slow. I think I have only a little bit more time before I have to REALLY learn Linux.
I HAAATE the start menu and taskbar in Windows 7. I'm not upgrading Vista for this main reason alone. All that crappy UI bloat is worse than Vista that can easily be turned off, not so in Win 7 - you're stuck with it. I actually am one of those that like my tweaked Vista 64 system very much, with UAC turned off and few other tweaks it's a great OS really. Stable.
Windows 7 doesn't really bring anything to the average Joe. Win 7 will mainly be replaced over the years as people get new computers. Just think of your none-computer friends, would you actually recommend them to go over the trouble of upgrading their none-broken XP (don't fix what's not broken) to Windows 7? Can an XP computer even be upgraded directly to Windows 7?
It totally sucks that you cannot upgrade in-place from XP to 7. As a result, I will not be upgrading. If I buy a new computer, I'll get one with Win7, but I won't be upgrading the one I have. Who the h*ll has time to do a clean install and reinstall every application??
I upgraded from xp 32 to 7 64 and I am pretty happy. Everything seems a little snappier, I like the new interface and just having some new for the first time in a long time. The only thing that it doesnt have is horizontal span. I use remote desktop to work from home and I cant span the remote desktop window across both my monitors. I could do that in xp. Oh well, one drawback and a lot of positives in my mind.
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
I don't think that research group gets it.
Vista was not a viable "upgrade" for XP users. Win7 runs better, uses less RAM and actually changes how the person uses the computer.
I can use XP or Win7... but I do prefer Win7 in many ways. There are some idiotic things that Win7 does.
Vista was not a viable "upgrade" for XP users. Win7 runs better, uses less RAM and actually changes how the person uses the computer.
I can use XP or Win7... but I do prefer Win7 in many ways. There are some idiotic things that Win7 does.
- Jul 24, 2006
- 22,845
- 271
- 57,490
People change when they need to, not when MS wants them to or when enthusiasts think they should. While XP is still supported people will continue to use it.
I would be a bit hesitant if I was on a computer that was 3 years or older.
but if I was getting a new one? no question, win7 over xp any day
but honestly, if you have 2gig of ram or less, and don't need 64 bit, it wouldn't be worth upgrading to win7 just for the sake of it
but if I was getting a new one? no question, win7 over xp any day
but honestly, if you have 2gig of ram or less, and don't need 64 bit, it wouldn't be worth upgrading to win7 just for the sake of it
cletus_slackjawd
Distinguished
- Dec 26, 2006
- 347
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]p05esto[/nom]I HAAATE the start menu and taskbar in Windows 7. I'm not upgrading Vista for this main reason alone. All that crappy UI bloat is worse than Vista that can easily be turned off, not so in Win 7 - you're stuck with it. I actually am one of those that like my tweaked Vista 64 system very much, with UAC turned off and few other tweaks it's a great OS really. Stable.[/citation]
I'm of the same situation and agree completely. A tweaked Vista 64 system is just dandy for me. I bought a new laptop for a friend with windows 7 and played around with it for half a day, don't see a compelling reason to upgrade. Seems Vista is well supported, still getting updates all the time for it.
I'm of the same situation and agree completely. A tweaked Vista 64 system is just dandy for me. I bought a new laptop for a friend with windows 7 and played around with it for half a day, don't see a compelling reason to upgrade. Seems Vista is well supported, still getting updates all the time for it.
eshwar_andhavarapu
Distinguished
- Nov 7, 2009
- 11
- 0
- 18,510
Its not surprising! you only get eye candy and Direct X 11 with windows 7 right? If nothing has stopped working on windows xp then why ditch it? there's no reason at all to stay with Vista since it is not as fast as XP or as polished as windows 7. then again there's no reason to pay a lot for an upgrade for windows 7. if windows 7 was a free and easy upgrade from Xp then people would. otherwise why would they?
Windows 7 i believe will be most succesful with new users rather than existing. nothing wrong with having a good first impression!
Windows 7 i believe will be most succesful with new users rather than existing. nothing wrong with having a good first impression!
I'm using 7 on my Core2 HTPC and XP on my X58 build. 7 has better software (sort of) for using my Hauppauge 2250. But I'm a graphical user not a text user, and therefore I'm sticking with XP for the moment. Although, I did purchase a upgrade for 7 for 40.00, but its still sitting on my shelf in original shrink wrap. Who knows, I might just save it as a collectors item. But seriously, I don't like reinstalling my OS, nor do I like being isolated from my other PC's because M$ refuses to allow backward compatibility on sharing files. Thats the real reason I haven't ripped off the cellophane, yet.
dainsane1
Distinguished
- Nov 10, 2008
- 55
- 0
- 18,630
still on 7RC (when i do use win boot). Most of my time is spent in ubuntu what i need from msos runs in wine; if not under an xp virtual machine.
rewind back to the beginning of visa. I was considering buying a mac because i wanted nothing to do with it. If games had any appeal (so tired of the same games with shinier pictures) i would have more desire to keep some msos around. so i never got far with the hackintosh thing; and the idea of overpaying for fashionable hardware just turns my stomach. I got a copy of ubuntu and have not looked back since.
A dead hard drive had me using the 7 RC. i had just installed 7 RC onto a second drive; a week later my primary drive started flaking (overheating chip on the drive). i fell back to win7 for a ~month. 7 was shiny at first and then the honeymoon period wore off and it was back to the classic frustration of "why did they do that?" as i am rigging my network shares and customizing the system.
my question for anyone who understand 7 is: how is an average user supposed to use the system without menus? I can get around because i know key commands; if i knew nothing i wold be lost getting onto these new computers.
/EndRant
rewind back to the beginning of visa. I was considering buying a mac because i wanted nothing to do with it. If games had any appeal (so tired of the same games with shinier pictures) i would have more desire to keep some msos around. so i never got far with the hackintosh thing; and the idea of overpaying for fashionable hardware just turns my stomach. I got a copy of ubuntu and have not looked back since.
A dead hard drive had me using the 7 RC. i had just installed 7 RC onto a second drive; a week later my primary drive started flaking (overheating chip on the drive). i fell back to win7 for a ~month. 7 was shiny at first and then the honeymoon period wore off and it was back to the classic frustration of "why did they do that?" as i am rigging my network shares and customizing the system.
my question for anyone who understand 7 is: how is an average user supposed to use the system without menus? I can get around because i know key commands; if i knew nothing i wold be lost getting onto these new computers.
/EndRant
eshwar_andhavarapu
Distinguished
- Nov 7, 2009
- 11
- 0
- 18,510
killerb255
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2006
- 326
- 0
- 18,780
There are many factors to consider here:
1) When XP was released, the Internet was not as accessible. Therefore, (mis)information didn't spread as fast.
2) No matter how votes sway, complaints are always louder than compliments. The Internet is far more widespread, so negativity becomes even louder.
3) People complained about XP upon its release. See point #1 for why it didn't seem as rampant as that of Vista and, to a lesser extent, Win7. For all we know, the complaining could have been as loud. It's just that there weren't enough ears for all of it back then...
4) XP replaced a negatively-received Windows Me, a hit-and-miss Windows 98 (mainly because this was the only fall-back for consumers that didn't want Me), and a positively-received Windows 2000. XP fit the bill quite well for the two 9x kernel OSes, effectively sending 9x to its grave. 2000 was more hit-and-miss: it didn't really offer much else in comparison to 2000 back then (Remote Desktop was nice, though).
5) Vista was replacing a positively received XP only (which people were complacent with, as it had no replacement for six years of it run!). It had some big shoes to fill and, for the most part, failed to deliver on that.
Its only real contributions were a better security model (even with UAC's annoyances, it's nice to be able to actually run programs as a standard user...just type in an admin password!), a push toward mainstream 64-bit support (XP 64-bit, aka. stripped down Server 2003 with 64-bit code, didn't have much consumer hardware support), and better Windows Media Center/Tablet PC support (want 64-bit Media Center/Tablet PC? Vista was your only option).
6) Windows 7 is replacing a negatively-received Vista and a positively-received XP. It is also the first Windows OS to actually run leaner than its predecessor. It's also benefiting from all of the fixes that were made to make up for Vista's shortcomings (file copy speed fixes, delayed Superfetching on startup) and has the added benefit of being able to use XP Mode to get around compatibility problems (I'm sure they could have backported this to Vista if they wanted to...)
7) The biggest complainers against XP were those that used Windows 2000, Macs, and Linux distros. The latter two are going to complain no matter what simply because they're already decided that they don't like Windows. The Windows 2000 complainers complained about the very thing that people in this forum are complaining about Vista and 7: bloat! 2000's minimum CPU speed requirement was 133 MHz while XP's was 233 MHz. This was back in 2001 in which a 100 MHz difference was XBOX HUGE! Now that the hardware has far surpassed the point where 100 MHz makes that significant of a difference, we don't hear as many complaints about XP bloat...
8) Finally, "software bloat" is in the eye of the beholder. Some people want Windows Media Center for their HTPCs. Others see it as a waste of resources. Some people like Aero. Others see it as a waste of resources. Some people like Windows Mail (which is not included in Windows 7). Others prefer to use web mail, Outlook, Thunderbird, etc. "Software bloat" is nothing more than developers trying to please everyone and, in the end, pleasing no one. Some people like indexing to find their TBs of files. Others see it as a waste of resources. Some people like Superfetch to use their unused RAM to retrieve their most frequently used programs faster. Others see it as "OMG, VISTA/7 IS USING A MACKTRUCK OF MAH RAMMERZ! XP IS BETTER!"
...then again, Superfetch is probably one of the most misunderstood (and polarizing) aspect of the Windows NT 6.x operating systems...
Of course "code bloat" is a different story altogether (which I think Vista had a lot of and Windows 7 fixed).
1) When XP was released, the Internet was not as accessible. Therefore, (mis)information didn't spread as fast.
2) No matter how votes sway, complaints are always louder than compliments. The Internet is far more widespread, so negativity becomes even louder.
3) People complained about XP upon its release. See point #1 for why it didn't seem as rampant as that of Vista and, to a lesser extent, Win7. For all we know, the complaining could have been as loud. It's just that there weren't enough ears for all of it back then...
4) XP replaced a negatively-received Windows Me, a hit-and-miss Windows 98 (mainly because this was the only fall-back for consumers that didn't want Me), and a positively-received Windows 2000. XP fit the bill quite well for the two 9x kernel OSes, effectively sending 9x to its grave. 2000 was more hit-and-miss: it didn't really offer much else in comparison to 2000 back then (Remote Desktop was nice, though).
5) Vista was replacing a positively received XP only (which people were complacent with, as it had no replacement for six years of it run!). It had some big shoes to fill and, for the most part, failed to deliver on that.
Its only real contributions were a better security model (even with UAC's annoyances, it's nice to be able to actually run programs as a standard user...just type in an admin password!), a push toward mainstream 64-bit support (XP 64-bit, aka. stripped down Server 2003 with 64-bit code, didn't have much consumer hardware support), and better Windows Media Center/Tablet PC support (want 64-bit Media Center/Tablet PC? Vista was your only option).
6) Windows 7 is replacing a negatively-received Vista and a positively-received XP. It is also the first Windows OS to actually run leaner than its predecessor. It's also benefiting from all of the fixes that were made to make up for Vista's shortcomings (file copy speed fixes, delayed Superfetching on startup) and has the added benefit of being able to use XP Mode to get around compatibility problems (I'm sure they could have backported this to Vista if they wanted to...)
7) The biggest complainers against XP were those that used Windows 2000, Macs, and Linux distros. The latter two are going to complain no matter what simply because they're already decided that they don't like Windows. The Windows 2000 complainers complained about the very thing that people in this forum are complaining about Vista and 7: bloat! 2000's minimum CPU speed requirement was 133 MHz while XP's was 233 MHz. This was back in 2001 in which a 100 MHz difference was XBOX HUGE! Now that the hardware has far surpassed the point where 100 MHz makes that significant of a difference, we don't hear as many complaints about XP bloat...
8) Finally, "software bloat" is in the eye of the beholder. Some people want Windows Media Center for their HTPCs. Others see it as a waste of resources. Some people like Aero. Others see it as a waste of resources. Some people like Windows Mail (which is not included in Windows 7). Others prefer to use web mail, Outlook, Thunderbird, etc. "Software bloat" is nothing more than developers trying to please everyone and, in the end, pleasing no one. Some people like indexing to find their TBs of files. Others see it as a waste of resources. Some people like Superfetch to use their unused RAM to retrieve their most frequently used programs faster. Others see it as "OMG, VISTA/7 IS USING A MACKTRUCK OF MAH RAMMERZ! XP IS BETTER!"
...then again, Superfetch is probably one of the most misunderstood (and polarizing) aspect of the Windows NT 6.x operating systems...
Of course "code bloat" is a different story altogether (which I think Vista had a lot of and Windows 7 fixed).
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 26
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question Safety regarding thermal paste application with spatula
- Started by PJmonster
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram