Yeah some of those do to, you can do it any PC retailer too, the ones they have out for show and to test
The Lonely Wanderer
Yeah some of those do to, you can do it any PC retailer too, the ones they have out for show and to test
[center]
BT Rep: +30
Well, Windows 7 looks a lot like Vista and well right now I'm using Vista because I plan to game now and all new games are DX10 and Windows XP only support DX9 officially. Now once a lot of games start using DX11; I will probably move to Windows 7 or once the performance in games is the same for both Vista and Windows 7. Of course when that happens I will also need a new video card haha.
Windows XP flies with 4GB of RAM. Vista runs alright but I find XP much faster. I love XP, the only reason I switched was because I wanted to play new games in DX10.
Last edited by saulin; 08-12-2009 at 03:23 AM.
I've tried Vista and I "are you sure you want to type that letter?" didn't "are you sure you want to type that word?" like it. But I also tried Win7 and found it a jumble compaired to XP or Vista when it come to finding your way around. OH, sure I've read about people who love the new pinning of stuff or the jump function and libraries but I never got that far cause I was looking for stuff I could recognize. Add/Remove programs for instance or a classic view button to get it back.
To me the big MS mistake was to base the newest OS on a loser. I figure if they created a flashy GUI based exactly on XP's interface, added the new faster file system and its kernal, along with directx 11 and even maybe some aero stuff and created XP2 they would be in a much better position now than what they did to themselves with Win7. Even if it meant taking 2 or 3 years before they could release it. Stealing more GUI stuff from Apple is not going to wisk them off into the future, and change for change sake just ticks people off.
Last edited by Appzalien; 08-12-2009 at 02:30 PM.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22006
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=5101
few links among many what shows windows 7 is also faster than xp!
FST Crew
BT Rep: +1
Nice, but hardware requirements are much higher (obviously) than XP, so having a cheap, lightweight Windows-based server isn't possible.Originally Posted by Moksu
Last edited by iLOVENZB; 08-13-2009 at 08:30 AM.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music"
BT Rep: +13
For me the best XP is Windows XP 4ever
Poster
I agree with tesco. Pretty much everyone hated XP when it came out. I love Vista but you really have to have a beast of a machine to run it properly so hopefully Win 7 will do the job properly this time
Poster
BT Rep: +35
to me, XP vs. Vista is like Hand screwdriver vs. electric screwdriver. The hand screwdriver can unscrew the same screws as the electric screwdriver, but the electric screwdriver is faster and easier. I don't care about benchmarks. I KNOW that 7 performs better on my $400 laptop that I bought a year ago than Xp, and it performs better on my 3 year old PC than XP does.
Come on,mbucari,don't be so provocative ! How does it perform better is the right question and will you answer it rationally ? Please ? With Vista and 7,we are experiencing for the first time a regression compared to the previous OS generation.We all read about the "Vista relaoaded" craze,so three years later,we were expecting everything that Vista should've been (Understand:errr,Vista the way it should've been from the start) but no.
Poster
BT Rep: +35
I don't know what Vista "Should have been", but I know what I experienced with all 3. I was just as excited as the next person when vista came out. I didn't install until the RTM, and used it exclusively for almost 6 months. My experience was positive in some respects. Most notably, it handled unresponsive programs MUCH better than XP, the UI froze MUCH less than XP and I received fewer BSOD's than with Xp on the same hardware. Points against it were it's high cpu USE. Vista would idle around 10% load and this noticeably effected performance while using the machine. It "rotted" much more quickly than XP. In the 6 months I used it, I felt I needed to reinstall 3 times to fix the extraneous errors and get a speed boost. It might have been 3rd party software instead of winrot, but I'm not in the habbit of installing every piece of software that catches my eye. Oh, and navigation is explorer was VERY user unfriendly.
Come on,mbucari,don't be so provocative ! How does it perform better is the right question and will you answer it rationally ? Please ? With Vista and 7,we are experiencing for the first time a regression compared to the previous OS generation.We all read about the "Vista relaoaded" craze,so three years later,we were expecting everything that Vista should've been (Understand:errr,Vista the way it should've been from the start) but no.
Enter Windows 7. After my less than pleasurable experience with vista, I went back to XP and had been there until may of this year. I decided I've give windows 7 a chance based on a recommendation made by clocker. I immediately noticed the same benefits that vista had over XP, and quickly noticed that idle cpu use hovered around 1% (on the same cpu). Explorer had been improved over vista and ever over XP imo. Day to day operation was and is smoother and I haven't noticed any performance decrease running other applications. There is the occasional compatablity problem, but that's to be expected. Now, as far as winrot goes I have been stunned. I'm currently running build 7264 which I installed when it was released (don't remember when that was) and am not too much of a hurry to upgrade (cuz I don't want to buy a ned optical drive which I broke).
Yes, vista was slow. I'd rather use XP than vista and did for 2 years, but now I'd rather use 7. Like I said, show me all the benchmarks you want. Prove to me that 7 averages 20% slower than XP all around. In my hands it feels faster.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks