Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Is Windows 7 better Then Windows Vista

Last response: in Windows 7
Share
July 15, 2009 3:05:52 AM

I heard windows 7 is not near as good as windows vista, Is this true?

More about : windows windows vista

a b $ Windows 7
July 15, 2009 3:31:08 AM

I like it better, personally. It seems faster and more intuitive than Vista. It still has some minor quirks, but overall, I think it is a definite improvement over any prior MS OS.
July 15, 2009 3:34:35 AM

I guess i need to get a copy , i havent been building any computers lately and havent been in this furom i about 9 months, My buddy said it wasnt that great but considering it is still fairly new it will get better.
Related resources
July 15, 2009 5:06:42 AM

I can't really see how it could be "not near as good" when it's built on the Vista code base.
July 15, 2009 5:21:15 AM

to tell you the truth, it just feels like a "vista that works"...vistas rep wouldnt be in shambles if it was like win 7...
a b $ Windows 7
July 15, 2009 5:29:06 AM

One word: Hell Yes! oh, I suppose that's two...

That Win7 is better, that is.
July 15, 2009 5:30:59 AM

randomizer said:
I can't really see how it could be "not near as good" when it's built on the Vista code base.


that about covers it
July 15, 2009 6:31:59 AM

Se7en is quicker, hogs less resources, and has a few minor upgrades to Vista. There are a few minor issue that people report, but nothing to be worried about.

..My opinion of coarse; but I'm a fanboi since my computer and Vista never played nice together.
July 15, 2009 6:39:55 AM

habitat87 said:
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.


This has to be one of the largest piles of male bovine excrement yet. You obviously weren't involved in the WinXP release, were you? Or do you just have a short memory? It took XP what, three years to get the bugs ironed out after release?

My Vista install works just fine, thank you. My Win7 RC install runs just fine, thank you. Both are much faster in apps than my XP install, thank you, especially apps that need more than one thread. (Won't even go into 64bit support, or lack of in XP...)

I predict that XP updates will be non-existant somewhere around q4 2010.

a b $ Windows 7
July 15, 2009 7:32:00 AM

XP versus Vista versus Windows 7:

Windows 7 is built on Vista and adds many improvements. It is essentially better in everyway except for a lack of drivers but that will be rectified on release. Due to the core Vista base many Vista drivers actually work or require little modification.

Vista and Windows 7 versus XP:
That's difficult. In many ways they are better (especially Win 7). However, significant driver or software issues occur for some people with older hardware. Most people comfortable with computers can easily jump from XP to Windows 7 but there are lots of people who don't like change.

There are lots of sites to find info.

I'm dual-booting Windows 7 RC 64bit and Windows XP. I'm really getting used to Windows 7's visual features but could quite easily go back to XP.

However, security, stability are much better in Windows 7.

Anyone upgrading from XP should get the 64bit version of Windows 7.
July 15, 2009 7:33:04 AM

+1 for croc!!
habitat87, your one of those "i dont like change" types... Yes vista was released premature, thats where most of the bad rep came from, and most people are still hung up on that, i switched over to vista as soon as sp1 was available, did the same with XP, will most likely do the same with W7.
To be honest, i would never go back to XP, the small insignificant changes like the "press start and just type what your looking for", then there is the caching, oh the joy, app's you use regularly gets lightning fast, so if vista is slow upgrade your hardware... my old P4 was performing quite well with vista.

As for the original question...

randomizer +1, just a new kernel and some streamlining. so it will better than vista.
a c 209 $ Windows 7
July 15, 2009 8:33:32 AM

croc said:
I predict that XP updates will be non-existant somewhere around q4 2010.
Updates in the form of service packs have already ceased - nothing beyond SP3 will be released for Windows XP.

Microsoft has committed to providing security patches and hotfixes for XP SP3 until April 2014.
July 15, 2009 1:17:34 PM

I believe Vista was by far the best release of Windows so far and that Windows 7 will be even better. I started with Vista 32 bit on my game machine, the only problem I had was from Nvidia drivers, and then I did a clean install of Vista 64 bit, I had no problems at all. I have Vista 64 bit on my main machine, game machine, and Windows 7 RC on my media center machine.
July 15, 2009 1:34:54 PM

habitat87 said:
Vista was the worst OS that MS has released so far.

I suppose Windows Me was the best?
July 15, 2009 1:36:43 PM

inspector71 said:
I heard windows 7 is not near as good as windows vista, Is this true?
Win7 is head and shoulders above Vista! The RC is still a but buggy and has driver/hardware compatibility issues. Once these issues are worked out (after SP1?), I would actually pay money for a retail version of Win7 instead of bootlegging or going OEM.
habitat87 said:
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.
My vote is actually for Windows ME. Overall Vista got bad press and after SP1 improved nicely.

a b $ Windows 7
July 15, 2009 2:43:06 PM

Used them all at one time or another, and I have a couple unpopular opinions. The first is that (contrary to popular belief), XP is not God's Gift to Desktop Operating systems. XP at it's release was much worse than Vista at it's release, and that's a fact. Less driver support, more bugs, and issues with drivers (*still) can bring the entire thing down. The advantage XP had at it's release which Vista did not is that the OS's XP replaced were even worse - with the notable exception of Win NT. So (we) dealt with it since it was still an improvement in the (desktop) environment it was intended.

The second unpopular opinion is that if you can't get Vista working properly, then you need to turn whatever passes for your Technical Credentials in at the door on your way out. It's not hard. "Different"? Yes. But not difficult.


With that out of the way:

I've said it before: If you are looking for "XP 2010", then you are going to be deeply disappointed. Win 7 is not XP. Never has been, nor will it be.


As it stands now - I am using Windows 7 RC (build 7100 - not the leaked stuff), which I installed via an in-place upgrade of an image of my Vista 64 drive. It's been reliable and fast since install.

Likes:

I like the Action Center - It could be better, but it makes it easier to figure out what's going on with your system easier than in any previous version of Windows.

Superfetch has been toned down to be more polite about how it manages and caches data. It still does does it's thing, but isn't nearly as aggressive about it. Preferring instead to work in the background at a lower priority. The result is that the desktop becomes responsive much quicker on start up than it does under Vista. This is an easily noticable difference.

7 is better about how it handles multiple program windows - In earlier versions Windows keeps a copy of texture data for each window. Where possible, 7 uses a single version instead. So resource usage in situations where you have a lot of windows open is improved.

UAC is configurable, and the default is more polite to begin with.

Search - I've said it about Vista, and it holds true in 7 - I like the search. Indexed Results come up as fast as you can type the name. No More Navigating Menus and Sub Menus!

There's also a nice, and easy to use color calibration utility, better SSD support, and it Defrags itself.


I have a slightly more mixed impression of the new Taskbar - I don't like the defaults (icon only in a square box) all that much. Easy to fix using the context menu (right click). And if you're a Quick Launch junkie (like me), the defaults get really crowded, really fast. On The Other Hand: If you have a widescreen monitor - Try setting the Taskbar to the left or right side, open it up a little, and it quickly becomes superior to the older versions. Arrange your commonly used programs how you like, you'll have readable text instead of an icon, and the same program stays in the same place - always. So with a little practice, muscle memory becomes the rule when you want something. Nice...

July 15, 2009 8:52:18 PM

Well I really didnt have a great experience with Vista...I installed Vista ultimate 32 bit on my gaming rig after SP1 came out and I still had loads of problems with the OS...I gave the OS a chance for about a month but after that, I couldnt stand it, and simply went back to XP...while using Vista, my brand new rig didnt feel, well, brand new...when I switched to XP, everything felt the way it was supposed to...nice and fast...

As with Windows 7, I havent given it a chance on my gaming rig, but on my tablet it works and feels great...everything is fast and snappy even with a 1.6ghz pentium m processor and 1.5gb of ddr333 ram...the only bad thing I have to say about it is that there are no intel display drivers for my 4 year old tablet...this is why Vista had such a bad adoption rate...because the driver support was very poor from hardware manufacturers...but for this, I dont hold it against Microsoft, but on Intel instead...they simply refuse to release drivers for their legacy products which is simply inexcusable...

my 2 cents...
July 15, 2009 9:24:40 PM

habitat87 said:
Vista was the worst OS that MS has released so far.

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



You must be out of your mind. shake your medicine well when you drink it.
July 15, 2009 9:39:07 PM

habitat87 said:

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



you do realize that xp is on sp3 now, or is that somehow flawed to
a c 209 $ Windows 7
July 15, 2009 9:56:54 PM

Scotteq said:
...if you're a Quick Launch junkie (like me), the defaults get really crowded, really fast.
Yeah, I was really irked at this too. But I learned that you can still use the "classic" quick launch bar in Win7 with a little tweaking:

- Configure Windows Explorer to show hidden files and folders
- Unlock the toolbar
- Right-click the toolbar and select "Toolbars -> New Toolbar"
- Select folder: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\QuickLaunch
- Drag quick launch to the left end
- Right-click quick launch and uncheck "show text" and "show title"

July 15, 2009 10:48:02 PM

I'm not going to scream and shout in caps lock about how much of a n00b you are,
I'm just going to say that it is only in RC at the moment so there is no way to tell for sure, but from what I gather the RC is much better than Vista
a b $ Windows 7
July 15, 2009 11:10:59 PM

@ habitat:
lol what "professional" programs dont work with vista? If the company hasnt released an update to make it compatible by now i would throw that garbage away.

And obviously you have never used XP without a service pack... your first steps out into the internet would be like walking through the final level of chex quest with only the bootspoon.

EDIT: I guess my only gripe with windows 7 is that they stil have not brought back 3d space cadet pinball :( 
July 15, 2009 11:30:47 PM

skittle said:
@ habitat:
lol what "professional" programs dont work with vista? If the company hasnt released an update to make it compatible by now i would throw that garbage away.

And obviously you have never used XP without a service pack... your first steps out into the internet would be like walking through the final level of chex quest with only the bootspoon.

EDIT: I guess my only gripe with windows 7 is that they stil have not brought back 3d space cadet pinball :( 


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. I grant you that they are not normally commercial software, but nontheless they are still in use. To write new software for these purposes is prohibitively expensive and extremely time consuming. Your comment on throw the garbage away is typical of someone whose main computing experience consists of gaming or off the shelf commercial products. You need to realize that there are computing requirements which you have little or no knowledge of and are therefore unqualified to render judgment on them.
a b $ Windows 7
July 15, 2009 11:32:35 PM

You can name one obscure program, and you go around spreading FUD about an OS?

@rgsaunders, in house custom software isnt really what habitat or my self were talking about...
July 15, 2009 11:53:17 PM

"In house" custom software frequently has thousands of users in large corporate environments, in other cases in government organizations, the numbers may be smaller however these programs can be critically important and extremely difficult to have updated for new IT hardware/OS requirements. Some of the producers of these specialized products have warehoused "obsolete" hardware in order to provide customer support. An example of this would be some of the "ruggedized" mil spec computers designed for field use. These systems are also used by many civilian scientists for data aquistion and analysis in harsh environmental conditions.
I realize these are not normal consumer requirements, however they do represent a case for continued support of what are deemed by many to be obsolete or useless OS. Said support should however be on a fee basis once it is outside the normal support timeline.
a b $ Windows 7
July 16, 2009 3:33:40 AM

habitat87 said:
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.




Quote:
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.



a b $ Windows 7
July 16, 2009 3:37:56 AM

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/...

Sluggish corporate adoption of Windows XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2002/0,4814,7427...

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,...

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...




The Corporate and Specialized worlds have *always* done things at their own pace.
July 16, 2009 6:11:51 AM

@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...
July 16, 2009 6:54:27 AM

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.
July 16, 2009 7:15:13 AM

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.
July 16, 2009 7:46:27 AM

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.

July 16, 2009 7:55:28 AM

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.
July 16, 2009 7:56:37 AM

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.
July 16, 2009 8:07:02 AM

habitat87 said:
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.
July 16, 2009 8:12:29 AM

habitat87 said:
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.
July 16, 2009 8:14:51 AM

habitat87 said:
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.
July 16, 2009 11:08:12 AM

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.
a b $ Windows 7
July 16, 2009 11:23:18 AM

habitat87 said:
....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".
a b $ Windows 7
July 17, 2009 3:59:49 AM

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.
July 17, 2009 4:27:07 AM

randomizer said:
I suppose Windows Me was the best?

Lol! thats a good one
July 17, 2009 2:20:18 PM

habitat87 said:
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.
habitat87 said:
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.



a b $ Windows 7
July 17, 2009 6:09:45 PM

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.
July 17, 2009 6:15:27 PM

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?
a b $ Windows 7
July 17, 2009 6:23:27 PM

I do have DOSBox on my laptop....
July 17, 2009 6:27:17 PM

still playing doom and wolfenstein
a b $ Windows 7
July 18, 2009 12:09:29 AM

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.
a b $ Windows 7
July 18, 2009 12:39:58 AM

habitat87 said:
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.
July 18, 2009 12:41:09 AM

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.
a b $ Windows 7
July 18, 2009 12:42:59 AM

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?
!