Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 7 or Vista?

Last response: in Windows 7
Share
July 21, 2009 3:07:02 PM

I've long wondered if i should dump my Vista and replace it with a windows 7 instead. I dont really like vista... so i wonder, wich of them are the "best" the most stabile one and such.

More about : windows vista

a b $ Windows 7
July 21, 2009 4:08:47 PM

Vista is perfectly stable... Windows 7 will just be an improved version of Vista. You'll have to decide if the improvement will be enough to justify the cost.
July 21, 2009 4:37:12 PM

yeah vista is stable, but i dont like the setup for it... is there a XP mod for vista so the menues and the deskop looks like xp? i really liked that clean interface from XP
Related resources
a b $ Windows 7
July 21, 2009 8:02:41 PM

There isn't a "mod"... you can simply switch your desktop to classic style if you preferred XP's menu styles. Select Windows Classic under your desktop themes.
July 21, 2009 8:15:58 PM

If you have spare funds for Windows 7 you will like the fact that it has a built in XP compatability interface. This means the games you could play in XP but not in Vista will be playable in Windows 7.

This mode was done to lure the XP users that never converted to Vista. This alone is a very huge offering from Microsoft. The other nice thing is once you get your copy of Windows 7, you decide then if you are going 32bit or 64bit. You dont have to buy one or the other. But choose carefully as I think once you choose that is your version you are licensed to.

I used Windows 7 beta and it was very smooth and a clean interface. Everything worked just fine on my system.

If you dont have the spare funds then wait and get it later. Its a noteworthy OS to upgrade to IMO...
July 21, 2009 8:16:02 PM

If you dont like the look and feel of Vista, you aint going to like 7 much.
July 21, 2009 8:18:20 PM

I think you will find Windows 7 to be more up your alley than Windows Vista. I used Vista for a little over a year and recently installed the RC for Windows 7. 7 has that clean interface that you like, at least I think it has a clean interface. The XP SP2 compatibility will be right up your alley as well. I think it will be worth the money.
a b $ Windows 7
July 21, 2009 8:49:42 PM

englandr753 said:
If you have spare funds for Windows 7 you will like the fact that it has a built in XP compatability interface. This means the games you could play in XP but not in Vista will be playable in Windows 7.
...



"XP Mode" is a Virtualized environment and does not support graphics acceleration. For this reason, it would be an exceedingly poor choice for this purpose. It is not there to support games. It is there as a means to provide the required environment to ensure connectivity/functionality for legacy custom/specialized (business) apps.
July 21, 2009 8:53:40 PM

Are you sure about that? I thought I read an article that stated otherwise.

I will try to find the link and post. Please post a link of where you got this as well so everyone can read it.

July 21, 2009 8:54:27 PM

Zoron said:
There isn't a "mod"... you can simply switch your desktop to classic style if you preferred XP's menu styles. Select Windows Classic under your desktop themes.


Would that make the start menu and everything on the deskop too look like XP?
July 21, 2009 8:58:05 PM

I dont see the article I read but the two I found immediately prove you right. Good correction on your part.

There you go...
a b $ Windows 7
July 21, 2009 9:03:08 PM

englandr753 said:
Are you sure about that? I thought I read an article that stated otherwise.

I will try to find the link and post. Please post a link of where you got this as well so everyone can read it.



It is a Virtualized environment - by definition, it has no hardware based acceleration.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4263

http://lifehacker.com/tag/windows-7-xp-mode/

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10229125-56.html

http://www.infoworld.com/d/virtualization/microsoft-giv...




{edit} That doesn't mean you can't specify a Compatibility Mode for the individual (game) by right clicking => Properties => Compatibility
July 21, 2009 9:04:36 PM

englandr753 said:
I dont see the article I read but the two I found immediately prove you right. Good correction on your part.

There you go...


Well that sucked =/ but something that suck more is that my graphic card fan suddenly stuck in the wires that powers it and ripped them off -.- just bought the damn card and tomorrow i have to leave it in for warranty......................................... Crappy GeForce, my ATI that i run know is more stabile but it's old. Cheers ATI!
a b $ Windows 7
July 21, 2009 10:35:56 PM

i love how the quality of an operating system boils down to the start bar.
a c 209 $ Windows 7
July 21, 2009 11:15:59 PM

tisello said:
Would that make the start menu and everything on the deskop too look like XP?

No. One of my gripes about Windows 7 is that the "Classic Mode" features that used to be there are gone - it's now the new way or the "highway".

I'm actually starting to like the new interface, but it does take some getting used to.
July 21, 2009 11:48:43 PM

You may as well just move on to Win 7.
July 22, 2009 12:29:36 AM

even if ur system looks like xp, all the unnecessarty services that come with vista are still started in the background

wait for rtm to get win7 or until they develop a crackthat stops the rc from xpiring, immagine my disappointment when i found out 7600 wasnt rtm
July 22, 2009 3:02:03 AM

tisello said:
I've long wondered if i should dump my Vista and replace it with a windows 7 instead. I dont really like vista... so i wonder, wich of them are the "best" the most stabile one and such.



If you don't like Vista of course download the wiNDOWS 7 RTM from MSDN on August 06, 2009 or August 16, 2009. My opinion is that Vista with SP2 / SP1 is become acceptable but of course we cannot put it a good OS, if you need to pay for OS and you just use for general computing it may not worth for you to buy a new OS now.
July 22, 2009 8:22:38 AM

The question he is really asking is, is it worth the money. Thing is, if your able to make Vista work, no. A lot of people say that Vista works "just fine" and isn't as sluggish as people say it is after SP1. Basically, given they weren't lying, your probably only going to see XP users switching over once compatibility isn't an issue. Although, MS isn't saying much about the new OS. So most people are going to assume initially "It's what Vista should have been."

No, it's not the money i'm concernd of.. i have enough :p  what i really want to know it's how games and such work's in Windows 7? on my computer now i have both xp and vista. when i want to play high end games i have to use vista because of dx10 and the 4gig ram cap that is on my verision of xp. But when i dont play games or i play older games i always have xp running because i hate the slow thinking over capacitated vista. I've runned the MS Config to shut down a whole lot of progresses that starts up but it didnt help too much.

What i'm really is concerned of is as i said. Is it smoother then Vista? not all too noob friendly like vista is asking a 100 questions just for downloading a executable file and such, i mean that's just irritating for a person like me that know quite much about software and stuff.

Another thing that i dont like about vista is the interface of "explorer.exe" i think the whole *** looks ike crap confusing me over and over again. That's what i like about XP, XP had a way way way smoother interface. The vista interface is just clumpsy and irritating.

I also wonder about vista sp2, i havent downloaded it yet. Is it good and simpler as they promised or is it just original Windows bullcrap? i mean that they promise to make it much safer and infact it really doesnt matter. Will it also reduce the processes starting up so it will run faster or will it be like xp sp3. Total *** that makes your computer so slow you start to wonder if u got a *** load of viruses on it...
a b $ Windows 7
July 22, 2009 2:29:39 PM

tisello said:
No, it's not the money i'm concernd of.. i have enough :p  what i really want to know it's how games and such work's in Windows 7? on my computer now i have both xp and vista. when i want to play high end games i have to use vista because of dx10 and the 4gig ram cap that is on my verision of xp. But when i dont play games or i play older games i always have xp running because i hate the slow thinking over capacitated vista. I've runned the MS Config to shut down a whole lot of progresses that starts up but it didnt help too much.



I know Punkbuster has had some issues - mostly due to their delay/lack of support for Windows 7. In certain games, it doesn't recognize the OS and shuts you out for 'cheating'. In their defense, 7 is still Beta/RC - So it may be... unrealistic to expect them to have their ducks in a row. Nevertheless... < and we'll skip the discussion that "Punkbuster is really a form of 3rd party DRM" >

By and large, most games 'Just Run' - There is (one of many) listing(s) at http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/5739-windows-7-game-c... Of course - The Caveat that you can't run programs/games with 16 bit code still applies to Win 7 x64. My personal experience is 7 is as fast in a gaming situation as it's predecessors. Theoretically, one hopes this should further improve as DX11 cards and software hit the streets. But that is some time off, yet. A little note: 7 includes a nice utility you can use to calibrate your monitor - I like the difference.



tisello said:
What i'm really is concerned of is as i said. Is it smoother then Vista? not all too noob friendly like vista is asking a 100 questions just for downloading a executable file and such, i mean that's just irritating for a person like me that know quite much about software and stuff.



I have both at home - In regular usage, Windows 7 is noticably snappier than Vista. Superfetch has been made more polite about how it manages system resources - preferring to work in the background - and the result of that is it boots to a usable desktop faster. Regarding pop-up questions from the OS: UAC is configurable and more polite by default.




tisello said:
Another thing that i dont like about vista is the interface of "explorer.exe" i think the whole *** looks ike crap confusing me over and over again. That's what i like about XP, XP had a way way way smoother interface. The vista interface is just clumpsy and irritating.



Really? I happen to like the 'Breadcrumbs' approach, rather than the up/back icon, since I can skip a couple levels with a single click. To be honest, though - I don't navigate folders and sub folders very often any more: Instead, I just type the name of what I want in the search box. The results come back as fast as I can type.



tisello said:
I also wonder about vista sp2, i havent downloaded it yet. Is it good and simpler as they promised or is it just original Windows bullcrap? i mean that they promise to make it much safer and infact it really doesnt matter. Will it also reduce the processes starting up so it will run faster or will it be like xp sp3. Total *** that makes your computer so slow you start to wonder if u got a *** load of viruses on it...



I've had it (Vista x64 SP2) running for a couple months - from shortly after the time it became available through Technet. Verdict? Well... it's a service pack... Makes a few tweaks, compiles various patches and updates into a single file, etc etc.. But it's not Holy Water, doesn't make any fundamental changes to the operating system, and once installed the sky doesn't open up with a brilliant white light decending from The Very Heavens Above to somehow transform the OS into "XP 2010" (which is apparently what a lot of people want). So if that's what you're looking for, then.. :cry: 

If you'd like to optimize performance, here's a pretty decent tutorial: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/81176-speed-up-perfor...
July 22, 2009 2:54:17 PM

Scotteq, dude, Thanks alot. I can really see that you took yourself time and answered my questions. Thanks for the link to the tutorial it worked better then i suspected =) Too bad about punkbuster =/ i play bf2. Well i guess i'll wait a while to upgrade to windows 7 because is seem to have alot of bugs and such. Guess i'll wait a year or something.

And i'm downloading sp2 now anyways, it atleast seems a little better then without :p 
July 22, 2009 7:45:05 PM

If something supports windows vista and it says nothing about windows 7 will it have a driver install or will a need a new one. (specifically talking about mice and keyboards) I read it in the system requirements.
a b $ Windows 7
July 22, 2009 8:09:05 PM

Vista drivers will work in Windows 7 - Microsoft changed nothing in the driver space.
July 22, 2009 8:16:02 PM

this is excluding graffix drivers

every driver that worked on xp x86 will work on vista x86 and 7 x86
every driver that worked on xp x64 will work on vista x64 and 7 x64

the setup program might tell u its incompatible, but if u get the inf and the other base driver files ull be kool

and i dont see the need to certify everything either, my monitor is certified for win vista, my vga monitor, so a vga monitor from 1999 wont work?
of course it will, so wats the point
July 23, 2009 1:27:13 AM

Scotteq said:
Vista drivers will work in Windows 7 - Microsoft changed nothing in the driver space.

Thanks.
July 23, 2009 3:59:35 AM

Scotteq said:

I have both at home - In regular usage, Windows 7 is noticably snappier than Vista. UAC is configurable and more polite by default.

I happen to like the 'Breadcrumbs' approach, rather than the up/back icon, since I can skip a couple levels with a single click.


I never liked Vista, it has its personality issues. Windows7 has pretty much tweaked and improved upon almost everything over Vista. I even installed Win7 on my notebook and it runs great... sure its RC, but it'll last me well into 2010 in time for me to buy it.

XP Explorer has the Back and Forward buttons. The omission of the "UP" button is a pain in the rear. Its a nice large button to go back up one level on the tree. There are various ways to get to a folder and the BACK button may not apply to the desired function. Its not like Explorer is running out of space. MS should have made it kind of like Opera... there are many functions in Opera 9/10 that are not used, but are available for the user to add to the tool bar as well as arrange in many ways.

July 23, 2009 4:15:43 AM

tisello said:
I've long wondered if i should dump my Vista and replace it with a windows 7 instead. I dont really like vista... so i wonder, wich of them are the "best" the most stabile one and such. Vista is stable, but i dont like the setup for it... is there a XP mod for vista so the menues and the deskop looks like xp? i really liked that clean interface from XP


The buttons on Vista/Win7 are not really better than XP, just look different. The glow effects are good. I don't care for its transparency as it looks messy... so I tend to turn it off. I am trying it ON with my notebook to see how I feel about it. Wouldn't have minded refinement of the buttons on Win7 - but they are more than enough.

I never ever liked vista. I wasn't against vista because of what anyone said. But from personal experience from 2 years ago as well as today. I've even had two notebooks, side by side. A 2GB with Vista and 1GB with Win7. In every way, the Win7 notebook did everything faster. Start/shutdown, transfer files, UAC bugging you every 5minutes to something mundane as renaming a desktop icon or un0installing software - from within MS's own tools!

I've gotten used to the Star menu on Win7... its tweaks are nice. I changed the SHUT-DOWN button to something safer. I have some friends who also used/use Vista. Some have gone back to XP while others just complain about it all the time with "I hate Vista" - and its not on any of my computers. Win7 is on 2 of mine... its pretty good. having some issues on one computer, looks like a driver update after install has screwed things up with the network.

Depending on your computer and driver support, you may want to try Win7 RC and see how it works... and if going back to Vista from a restore partition or an actual Vista Disc is easy enough. Win7 installs in about 15mins on old/slow computers and about 10minutes on higher end computers. WOW!

I think most people who hate vista will like Windows 7. I do. And I'm not a fan of Microsoft. I would like to see them lose more market share so theres more competition. I'd like to see companies like Adobe make products for Linux... because Acrobat Reader doesn't count.

PS: For everyone using Vista or Windows7 (32bit mode) and even WindowsXP - go to download.com and get Agent Ransack. It'll allow you to FIND any file on the computer. Vista/W7 hides a lot of stuff from the end user. Its like an advance FIND tool from Windows98. You right click on a drive or folder and select Ransack.
a b $ Windows 7
July 23, 2009 7:05:44 AM

Checking "Show All Files" and unchecking "Hide Protected Operating System Files" effectively "unhides" all files on the drive... no need for 3rd party software. UAC under Vista can be disabled, but I do like that it's more configurable under Win 7.

Adobe products should be able to function via WINE under Linux, shouldn't they? If not, there's always VMs.

Fan of MS or not, Windows is here to stay. Apple had a chance, but they seriously screwed the pooch. Now they charge a premium to run their OS on the same damn hardware Windows runs on... anyone but the die hard MacHeads realize that Apple is ripping us off worse than MS ever could. Apple gets away with it because they don't have MS's market share.

Linux isn't a bad OS... it's just not well-suited for the average user. I don't care look up a tutorial everytime I want to install a 3D driver for my video card. It's a great OS, it's just not quite ready for primetime. Besides, Linux isn't better, it's just better for some people and Windows is better for others. It all depends on your needs.
July 23, 2009 1:08:26 PM

Zoron said:
Checking "Show All Files" and unchecking "Hide Protected Operating System Files" effectively "unhides" all files on the drive... no need for 3rd party software. UAC under Vista can be disabled, but I do like that it's more configurable under Win 7.


UAC has to be disabled under vista because its such a pain... then it becomes a useless feature. Win7, it behaves more... it still comes up on some things for odd ball reasons and it would be nice to have a user selectable list for it to SHUT UP about.

But no... the SEARCH function of Vista/Win7 are worse than XP when your looking for DLL, hidden files, etc that are not in the User folders. If you don't know the name of the file you're looking at - Ransack is easier to work with to isolate your searches.
Finding hidden folders... like with I first used Vista a long time ago, Ransack quickly found its temporary folder among other things.

Zoron said:

Adobe products should be able to function via WINE under Linux, shouldn't they? If not, there's always VMs.

Fan of MS or not, Windows is here to stay. Apple had a chance, but they seriously screwed the pooch. Now they charge a premium to run their OS on the same damn hardware Windows runs on...

Besides, Linux isn't better, it's just better for some people and Windows is better for others. It all depends on your needs.


The goal would be to run the software NATIVE on Linux, not with emulation/hacks... even if they do work. Yeah, I know MS is here to stay. They got lucky in the early 80s with IBM... and both Apple and Commodore were stupid in different ways. Of course Commodore operated like their brain was in the buttocks (oh, they were! Theres pictures to prove it). There is no reason why Apple can't make/sell a basic desktop computer (that looks cool) and cost reasonable. If they did, they could expand their market share. Their cheapest computer? A $500 tiny thingy without a keyboard or mouse.

When they went to PCIe, they should have retained compatibility with PC... making it easier to use more hardware.
They could go with a modified mATX board and make a mini-desktop for $600~900... of course it would be almost as fast as their $2500 Mac Pro. Sorry, while its not tiny - a $350 Compaq is still more powerful than a $500 Mac Mini.

About Apple / Mac pricing: About 20 years ago, I was reading an article from a software developer/company. Like any good-natured programmer her wanted is software to expand by being cheap that anyone could/would buy it. But it wasn't going very well. So he raised the price for his Mac application and suddenly, people were buying it! I don't know the prices, but I gather going from $40 to $200 made business take him seriously. To a degree, that was a bit of a problem with Amigas... A $1000 Amiga could run circles around a $3000 Macintosh. But who would take chicken lips seriously?

About Linux: Agreed... I think it is better than Windows in many ways... and others, its not. Glad its around.
July 23, 2009 2:44:37 PM

so as a statement, what do you think i should choose at the moment

Option 1: Stay with vista until christmas
Option 2: Stay with vista until a windows 7 SP1 comes
Option 3: Stay with vista for all eternety because windows 7 SUCK!
Option 4: Switch to Linux or Mac (wich i probably wont do anyways)
July 23, 2009 2:45:17 PM

and option 5: Dump vista as fast as you can!
a b $ Windows 7
July 23, 2009 6:10:19 PM

If you just bought Vista, I'd say stick with it. The only reason I'm moving to Win 7 is because I could not resist that pre-order discount.
July 23, 2009 8:06:32 PM

Id use XP over Vista any day, easy. I go out of my way to not use Vista. And the OP has stated he doesn't like Vista.

If he has a standard build PC... install XP over it, of course.

Windows7 is a worthwhile replacement of XP.

AMD is saying to expect a 7~10% performance increase in gaming with Windows7 over Vista with their new drivers. WOW! If thats true, I want to see that.
July 24, 2009 3:17:58 AM

habitat87 said:
@tisello

So, from what your are saying, why not just buy it? Also, if your interested in buying it, try an rc. Should give you a good example of how it's going to be. Maybe I was too broad and boring with what I said.

The way I see it, obviously the performance difference isn't enough for a lot of people to buy it in anticipation, excitement, or hype which evidently leads to the fact that people bought Vista for the eye candy.

I've seen Windows 7 pre order for very little and most people don't seem as interested in it as they were with Vista.




Hey Habitat87,

I read all your other post on the thread that got locked, I just missed posting a response on it, damn it!lol.

My first build I did was a AMD X 2 6400 b.e. with a Asus Mn32-sli wifi deluxe and 4 gb of Ocz gold 800mhz. I installed Vista before service pack 1..... FACT..... Thankyou, lol.

I have never had a problem with any programs not wanting to run on Vista, nor did it seem to slow my computer that I built down at all. It was very responsive, no issues what so ever.

My second build is now running a Phenom 9850 with a Jetway H0A4 extreme mother board, 2 gb of ocz 1066mhz reaper ram and Vista 64 bit, With no issues at all....FACT. Only thing I can say is that Jetway drivers were so far out of date with the CD they shipped with the board, that I had to get them from there site and install them.

My third build, Well Once again no problems running Vista at all,

Phenom II 940 B.E. @ 3.6 ghz Asus M379T deluxe, 4 gb of g.skill 1066mhz ram, water cooling from the Den, and a custom case I build from aluminum and lined with granite.....

Sure Vista use's a bit more ram, with one page open on explorer, yahoo. ms running, and steam and maybe pc. probe II, on my dual boot raid 0 set up, Vista use's around 42% of my ram if that. On Windows 7 RC 64 bit it only use's 30% ram


You can have your oppinion however twisted or false it is, but Vista has been very stable for me, on every custom build I have done for myself and for other clients that I build for. No real issues at all. It does not suck as a OS like you say it does.....FACT....thank you.... lol.


Also FYI, windows 7 has a compatiblty mode to install programs in several different OS mode. Very nice..... FACT.


Looking back at your posts in the other thread, WOW your NON FACT backed thoughts, are just amazing!!!!!


BTW, I am outta hear, LOL> :sarcastic: 
July 24, 2009 7:01:38 AM

habitat87 said:
Well, Vista has worked for you. What are you trying to get at? Does that mean that applies to everybody else? No... FACT!!! Do you think your the only person with computer needs? Perhaps... Is this a fact. NO!!! Hmmm, why haven't buisnesses adapted more towards Vista. Go figure. So... In other words, Does it sound like you got your head so far up your ass that you can't see that your not the only person with a computer. I'd say that's a fact, but that's just a saying... Damnit... Just missed it... Thanks I needed a person to end this.

THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN!!!

Bastards, I wanted a HAIL MARY!!! I hate you people!!!


Did you forget to take your meds??? AGAIN??? Ok, back to the rubber room you go.
July 24, 2009 10:26:11 AM

medjohnson77 said:
Hey Habitat87,

You can have your oppinion however twisted or false it is, but Vista has been very stable for me, on every custom build I have done for myself and for other clients that I build for. No real issues at all. It does not suck as a OS~



Fact: WinXp and Win7 on an older computer boots up and shuts down faster, open programs faster than Vista on a new PC. I did this myself, a 5 year old PC with 512mb was faster than a new Vista computer with 2GB (admit, its a low end single core CPU 2.0ghz - but it is a new PC).

Fact: UAC on vista sucks. Either live with it or turn it off. Kind of makes Vista into XP in terms of security to turn it off, dont you think? UAC on Win7 is a lot better.

Fact: Not everyone has your computer or software requirements. If a $5000 plotter doesn't play nice with Vista, are you going to buy a new plotter?

Fact: A lot of people DON'T like Vista, its a right - not a law.
Fact: Many people who doesn't like Vista - have actually used it.
Fact: Other than Halo2, there isn't a program on the market that won't work with Windows XP.
Fact: Speed boost is a joke... if Vista is SOOOO fast, why does it need a booster?
Fact: Vista (and to a degree Win7) is the most bloated OS ever made. This reduces performance and eats resources. Try using another OS to form an opinion, then you'd know how much Vista sucks.
Fact: Other OSs don't matter as much since MS has 90% of the PC market - so we live with what we got for the sake of compatibility with MS-DOS!

Yep, we have this rather sloppy OS because of MS-DOS. Apple and Amigas didn't have ties to such a horrible OS. Also, they were 16/32bit computers long before MS.

Fact: Complaints about a product is how you approve upon the next one. Calling Vista out for its flaws, rather than living with them is better for everyone. If Vista wasn't considered a crappy OS by many people in the industry, home & business, Then we wouldn't have Windows7. It would be Vista-Se or whatever. If Windows7 wasn't running as good as it is, I *was* prepared to use WindowsXP well until the next OS or into Linux.

Fact: Many people migrated to Linux or Mac because of Vista. But not enough to really hurt. Doesn't effect you or me (unless you have shares in MS)

Fact: Steve Ballmer is still a monkey man.
July 24, 2009 10:34:02 AM

belardo said:
Fact: WinXp and Win7 on an older computer boots up and shuts down faster, open programs faster than Vista on a new PC. I did this myself, a 5 year old PC with 512mb was faster than a new Vista computer with 2GB (admit, its a low end single core CPU 2.0ghz - but it is a new PC).

Fact: UAC on vista sucks. Either live with it or turn it off. Kind of makes Vista into XP in terms of security to turn it off, dont you think? UAC on Win7 is a lot better.

Fact: Not everyone has your computer or software requirements. If a $5000 plotter doesn't play nice with Vista, are you going to buy a new plotter?

Fact: A lot of people DON'T like Vista, its a right - not a law.
Fact: Many people who doesn't like Vista - have actually used it.
Fact: Other than Halo2, there isn't a program on the market that won't work with Windows XP.
Fact: Speed boost is a joke... if Vista is SOOOO fast, why does it need a booster?
Fact: Vista (and to a degree Win7) is the most bloated OS ever made. This reduces performance and eats resources. Try using another OS to form an opinion, then you'd know how much Vista sucks.
Fact: Other OSs don't matter as much since MS has 90% of the PC market - so we live with what we got for the sake of compatibility with MS-DOS!

Yep, we have this rather sloppy OS because of MS-DOS. Apple and Amigas didn't have ties to such a horrible OS. Also, they were 16/32bit computers long before MS.

Fact: Complaints about a product is how you approve upon the next one. Calling Vista our for its flaws, rather than living with them is better for everyone. If Vista wasn't considered a crappy OS by many people in the industry, home & business, Then we wouldn't have Windows7. It would be Vista-Se or whatever. If Windows7 wasn't running as good as it is, I *was* prepared to use WindowsXP well until the next OS or into Linux.

Fact: Many people migrated to Linux or Mac because of Vista. But not enough to really hurt. Doesn't effect you or me (unless you have shares in MS)

Fact: Steve Ballmer is still a monkey man.


Fact: Your post is full of BS until you give credible links or test results.
July 24, 2009 4:01:30 PM

Hello Belardo,

I am not going to debate about Vista having some problems. AS all OS do have problems. I have never had any problems with it.


I have used 95. 98, 2000, XP, XP 64 bit(which is a joke btw as a OS) and also I have used them for more then just a couple days and then just gave up on them unlike other posters here.

I have a old 939 socket, atfirst a single 4000 athlon 64, then upgraded to a X2 3800 with only 2gb of ram. It is my wifes parents computer, and after some tweeking, it runs Vista 64 bit fine. Alot of people who don't like Vista, go and buy store bought computers with all the bloat ware on them and have crapy hardware to boot. Or they just have older hardware, and then wonder why there computer runs so slow.

Windows 7 does run faster then Vista and XP in some case's, However if we use your line of thinking about it being a total crap OS then if XP is so good why do we have Vista or Windows 7, know what I mean?



habitat87 wrote :


Well, Vista has worked for you. What are you trying to get at? Does that mean that applies to everybody else? No... FACT!!! Do you think your the only person with computer needs? Perhaps... Is this a fact. NO!!! Hmmm, why haven't buisnesses adapted more towards Vista. Go figure. So... In other words, Does it sound like you got your head so far up your ass that you can't see that your not the only person with a computer. I'd say that's a fact, but that's just a saying... Damnit... Just missed it... Thanks I needed a person to end this.

THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN!!!

Bastards, I wanted a HAIL MARY!!! I hate you people!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I believe that I said to the point at what I was getting at, let me refresh for you.....

pay attention now because this is the second time I have to re type what you should of gotten the point first time around.

Not only has Vista worked well for me, but also many people I know, including many custom builds I have done for alot of clients. Out of all the custom builds I have done in the last several months, only one of them the client asked for XP. All the rest went with Vista 64 bit and 4 gb of ram.

I believe that we have already, in the forum that got locked went over point by point as to why buiness is slow to adopt any new OS, Period! In fact some buiness are still on 98, HMMM. So what.

As far as your little bash about my head being where??? Well as I stated in my first post, I am running 4 computers, and they one of them has XP and vista 64 bit, the other three have vista 64 bit and Windows 7 64 bit and have run smooth and fast from day one of there installs.

Sounds like somebodys head is just stuck in the past, or has hardware that just can not keep up with newer OS. LOL>
July 24, 2009 5:35:14 PM

medjohnson77 said:
Hello Belardo,

I have used 95. 98, 2000, XP, XP 64 bit(which is a joke btw as a OS) and also I have used them for more then just a couple days and then just gave up on them unlike other posters here.

I have a old 939 socket, atfirst a single 4000 athlon 64, then upgraded to a X2 3800 with only 2gb of ram. It is my wifes parents computer, and after some tweeking, it runs Vista 64 bit fine. Alot of people who don't like Vista, go and buy store bought computers with all the bloat ware on them and have crapy hardware to boot. Or they just have older hardware, and then wonder why there computer runs so slow.

Windows 7 does run faster then Vista and XP in some case's, However if we use your line of thinking about it being a total crap OS then if XP is so good why do we have Vista or Windows 7, know what I mean?


Of course ALL OS have their problems. ;)  I've used Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS (ugh!). I know people who OWN Vista PCs and they complain all the time about it. Not my problem, I don't have it.

I have W7 running on an AMD 3800+, its on a not-so good ECS motherboard, but for the most part - it runs very fast and smooth. For fun, I've installed W7 on an AMD32-Sempron 3000 (2.0Ghz) with 512mb, it still out-started a new 2GB computer. I even opened up about 10 apps (Paint, Write, etc) and it chugged along... seen far worse with Vista. I went and found a 512mb RAM module and the 5year old computer runs pretty good. No audio drivers :(  But Win7 SHOULD be run on newer computers made in the past 1-2 years.

Why do we have Vista & 7? Money... Microsoft makes more money with a new release... and OS advancement is important. Otherwise you guys would still be using MS-DOS. (I Say "you" - because some of us were multi-tasking with a GUI-OS in the 80s and laughing at MS-DOS users. Obviously, MS was a much smarter computer company than Apple/C= )

For the most part, XP is still good enough to chug around for another 4-5 years. But Win7 is supposed to support multi-core CPUs better, DX11 is of interests (even with PC gaming in the dumps) and other improvements. More PCs get sold when theres a NEW OS as well. I used Win98 for quite a while... but as I compared performance of AMD CPUs on XP vs Win98 - it was possible to see that Win98 wasn't taking full advantage of 2003 CPUs. Win98 worked fine, but WinXP was easily a better OS.

If MS wants to stay on "cutting edge", they'll be releasing a major OS every 3 years or so... otherwise, business will not be forward thinking. There is good and bad things about XP (or any OS) lasting so long.

Vista didn't help computers run better. Windows 7 has visible improvements in performance. That gives it value.
July 24, 2009 5:54:49 PM

croc said:
Fact: Your post is full of BS until you give credible links or test results.


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/...
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. :hello: 
a b $ Windows 7
July 24, 2009 6:34:29 PM

Quote:
Fact: WinXp and Win7 on an older computer boots up and shuts down faster, open programs faster than Vista on a new PC. I did this myself, a 5 year old PC with 512mb was faster than a new Vista computer with 2GB (admit, its a low end single core CPU 2.0ghz - but it is a new PC).


There's the caveat... old computer. I've always stated that if your computer is a year or more older than Vista, you're better off sticking with XP. However, if you're building a brand new computer, then why do you want an OS that is starting to show it's age? It makes little sense to build a new computer with the choicest components and stick an OS on it that is 7 or 8 years old now. Even you have to admit that the performance difference on new hardware is negligible.

Quote:
Fact: Speed boost is a joke... if Vista is SOOOO fast, why does it need a booster?


This was implemented for computers that didn't have enough RAM. If you have 2GB+ of RAM, then you're not going to notice a difference.

Quote:
Fact: Other OSs don't matter as much since MS has 90% of the PC market - so we live with what we got for the sake of compatibility with MS-DOS!


Another reason to move to 64-bit... 16-bit code is left completely behind.

Quote:
Yep, we have this rather sloppy OS because of MS-DOS. Apple and Amigas didn't have ties to such a horrible OS. Also, they were 16/32bit computers long before MS.


Blame corporations and custom software vendors. Every time a new version of an OS came out, they demanded that it be backwards compatible with their old software. I know you'd love to do it, but you cannot blame MS for that one. Besides, here you are complaining that old stuff that runs on XP won't run on Vista... hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

You can't have it both ways. You either want a completely new OS that isn't bloated to hell or you want an OS that is completely backwards compatible. Make your choice.

The fact is I haven't personally experience any of these so-called "flaws" you keep going on about. Vista works just the way it's supposed to on both my computers... no problems whatsoever. That's not to say it's going to work 100% for everyone... every piece of software ever written isn't flawless... so why do we expect that our OS would be? MS releases patches / updates / service packs for a reason. If only most software companies would be so diligent in updating their products, we might not have so many problems to blame on Microsoft.
July 24, 2009 8:17:02 PM

Perfect example of someone hating Vista so much and never really worked with it at all.... My wifes father. He hated Windows Vista, even though he never had it on any of his laptops or home computer. I installed a dual boot of Vista and Xp on his desktop, with the 939 socket 4000 processor then upgraded to a x 2 3800 for him. We they do not even boot up XP anymore.

His Old dell laptop had xp on it, the motherboard blew up, and he had to go buy a new one. He went with a HP, not sure of the model, but it has Vista 64 bit with 4 gb of ram and a dual core AMD in it. He is a trucker and uses it all the time on the road, for someone that hated Vista, he sure has changed his tune, now that he has gotten used to it and I have helped him out with a few things, loves Vista compared to using XP. HMMM. I am not saying that Vista has made anyones computer faster, or better, but if you want to take advantage of certain things, new games, new programs, quad cores, grafix, well you will need to run a OS that handles and brings those advancements to the table. Period. I also believe if Windows 7 is not to expensive, is well worth upgrading to, and I will be buying it when it is released. However I am happy with Vista 64 bit, and it has worked very well for me.
July 25, 2009 12:35:30 AM

medjohnson77 said:
+1^^^^


You called my post BS. I stated there are facts and opinions.

I've had vista for days. Its out of box experience is still crap. Power up a brand new name-brand box and wait about 30minutes while it finished configuring itself! (God I hope name-brand OEM version of 7 doesn't do this crap).

Quote:
has gotten used to it and I have helped him out with a few things

Such as what? Vista shouldn't require any/much help in anything from XP. Things have been moved around (sometimes for the worst), but otherwise works the same. Disable some features? Tweaked it?

I'm comparing out of box Win7 out of box Vista. I've not had to disable anything to get good performance out of Win7.
July 25, 2009 1:20:03 AM

Quote:
ZORON: There's the caveat... old computer. I've always stated that if your computer is a year or more older than Vista, you're better off sticking with XP. However, if you're building a brand new computer, then why do you want an OS that is starting to show it's age? It makes little sense to build a new computer with the choicest components and stick an OS on it that is 7 or 8 years old now. Even you have to admit that the performance difference on new hardware is negligible.


Er... but if an OS (Win7) is able to run better on an older computer, makes sense it'll run even better on good new hardware. Age of the PC doesn't always determine its performance. You can buy a new PC (desktop) that is slower than a 3 year old computer. XP age? Vista has different eye-candy, but its not earth shattering. Personally, I think active windows should not be transparent - that would be nicer (an option would be good). But yeah, XP is 8 years old - so what? Want vista/Win7 like eye-candy, download about 2mb of gadgets and boom, Vista-eyecandy. And yes, for most people a $350 dual core AMD PC isn't much slower than a $1000 computer. Add a better video card will help, of course.

Quote:
This (Speedboost) was implemented for computers that didn't have enough RAM. If you have 2GB+ of RAM, then you're not going to notice a difference.


That is a flaw... When a computer goes from 512mb > 2GB for basic computer operations. When vista was new, Memory wasn't $30 for 4GB of RAM. It was closer to $150 for 2GB. Having a thumb-driving sticking out of a computer is rather... stupid (both in looks and in function). Speedboost is as useless today as it was 2 years ago. It was one of the exciting "features" of Vista. Win7 works very well with 1GB, which is proof of the problems of Vista.


Quote:
Blame corporations and custom software vendors. Every time a new version of an OS came out, they demanded that it be backwards compatible with their old software. I know you'd love to do it, but you cannot blame MS for that one. Besides, here you are complaining that old stuff that runs on XP won't run on Vista...


Yep... but also the users THAT demand compatibility (including myself). Had that problem with Amigas. I had a high end model unit, but had to revert to an OLD-SLOW emulation mode to play games. The company that made Amigas should have put their foot down for the game companies to be more flexible. Desktop software pretty much worked across the board from 1.2~3.x. 3.0 was so good, it ran on the first computer just fine... actually better than its original 1.2 OS. So I gauge the quality of the product by HOW WELL it performs to previous versions.

But the compatibility issue is what allowed MS-DOS to be the dominate OS. In 1990, using a PC meant MS-DOS/CLI. The business world could have gone Amiga. It was A- Cheaper, B- Faster, C-Multitasking which is more productive, D- Has a GUI & CLU, E- real file names not the 8.3 70's OS junk. But because it didn't run PC WordPerfect & Lotus123 (well it ran Amiga versions), the Amiga didn't gain market share. There are business clients who have software not working on Vista, that is a problem. I think its worse because XP stuck around a long time. I'm having problems with some games working in Win7.

I'm not blaming MS for Vista being incompatible with XP (not completely MS fault), but I blame MS for how they designed Vista.

Quote:
You can't have it both ways. You either want a completely new OS that isn't bloated to hell or you want an OS that is completely backwards compatible. Make your choice.


Many people made a choice, they stuck with XP. And yes, you can have a new OS that isn't bloated... I don't have that much of an issue with compatibility. Win7 proved those points.

Quote:
The fact is I haven't personally experience any of these so-called "flaws" you keep going on about.


Thats fine. I've recommended people try/use Vista since SP1, rather than just my opinion. Many either don't like it or just live with it. The "flaws" are shown in the computer industry... even on this website. The reports, the reviews, sales & market share, etc. I've stated before, TWO notebooks, side by side... Win7 & Vista... still didn't like the Vista "experience". Whenever some stupid thing or performance issue came up on the Vista, I'd replicate it on Win7 and most of the time - didn't have the issue. Hmmmmmm.

MS goal was to make Win7 better than Vista, and better as an OS in general that its worth it for XP users to upgrade. They did that. Why can't you see that? Thats considered a good thing.

Quote:
Vista works just the way it's supposed to on both my computers... no problems whatsoever. That's not to say it's going to work 100% for everyone...


Thats fine... but its not acceptable to me. Its performance is sub-standard to XP. I have a Core2Quad @ 3Ghz and generally a mid/high end system. Win7 runs excellent on my much slower ThinkPad. I've gotten ThinkPads from Lenovo pre-loaded with Vista that I played with before wiping them out before installing XP. Lenovo used to include an XP disc back then, now they pre-load their notebooks with XP and include a Vista disc (thanks). So well after SP1, on the same hardware with a core2duo/2GB RAM - Vista wasn't good enough.

A client/buddy was complaining to me "I going to buy a Mac" - He's been using a fairly powerful notebook (better than mine in CPU / GPU / RAM & HD) with Vista for over 6 months now. He hates it. I told him to hold off for a few months and give Win7 a try... he may or may not. Its not my choice.

I say this to every happy Vista user. Good for you. Really. I mean it too. Why should I wish you or anyone else a horrible time with their computers? (other than bad guys)
a b $ Windows 7
July 26, 2009 9:35:37 AM

You don't need to sell Windows 7 to me... I've already pre-ordered Pro for my desktop and Home for my laptop. I'd much rather see users migrate to Win 7 than sticking with Windows XP... getting everyone off a really old OS makes me happy. I simply say that Vista isn't nearly the disaster most people make it out to be... and if it weren't for the nice pre-order discount on Win 7, I probably would have stuck with Vista for a while longer. Using the RC didn't really get me excited... but it did show me that upgrading now for half the price of doing it later is definately worth it.
July 26, 2009 3:18:07 PM

MacOS X (10) is older than XP, yet is hasn't really changed much and still looks very nice.

But it is good to see something worthwhile in buying. Too bad they won't sell it for $50 (HOME) as the normal MSRP. They may get more sales that way.
a b $ Windows 7
July 26, 2009 7:22:37 PM

MS stated a while back that their OSes would have a 3-year cycle... the plan was to release a new version of Windows every 3 years. Apple doesn't have to worry so much, as they have their users pretty much locked in anyway. You always have the option of running Windows or Linux on your Mac, but to me that seems to be a huge waste of money. You paid a premium to purchase a Mac PC, yet you run Windows or Linux on it exclusively... you could have purchased much higher-end hardware for a lot less money if you want to run Windows or Linux... to me the only reason to buy a Mac is to run MacOS. However, that just doesn't justify the price premium... at least not for me.
July 28, 2009 7:26:00 AM

ok so for gaming then what is best currently

Vista or Windows 7?
a b $ Windows 7
July 28, 2009 2:05:06 PM

If you're talking about right now, Vista. If you're talking about after October, then I might lean towards Windows 7.
!