|
Windows 7 compared to Windows XP
|
|
Member
|
10. May 2009 @ 18:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
So then we all know that vista failed and should never be spoke of again but now with windows 7 on the way i wanted to find out what people thought of it compared to the xp.
C:/DOS C:/DOS/RUN RUN/DOS/RUN
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. May 2009 @ 18:07
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
12. May 2009 @ 22:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
I can tell you Vista rocks I have had no issues love my Ultimate. I did test 7 it is a very stripped down version of Vista with some tweaks and changes it installs faster as it has less to install, boots up in about the same amount of time I don't think it's one bit faster and my shut downs acted weird but took a little less time than Vista and I don't compare with XP while its a great operating system Vista & 7 are next gen no comparison the enhanced security, desktop aero, desktop search, file management are far superior. I used XP for 7 years I don't have sneakers that old and XP was always catching drive by spyware.
pokin'around
|
Member
|
13. May 2009 @ 11:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
So you really got on with vista that well? I did not like it at all, took up far to many resources and also Microsoft thinks it can run on a 1GHz processor and 1GB of system memory they must be joking.
C:/DOS C:/DOS/RUN RUN/DOS/RUN
|
Senior Member
|
13. May 2009 @ 17:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
The basic version does run on those specs with a 128mb video card I have installed it on Athlon boards with no issues.
pokin'around
|
Member
|
13. May 2009 @ 18:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
yes that basic one can run on a lower spec pc (1GHz processor, 512MB of system memory and a 32mb video card)but my point is that that would not run well, maby on its own it would with no other programs install, but it is just far to much of a resource hungary OS that was released far to early and the User Account Control is a disaster so was the networking why did they change somthing that worked very well in xp.
C:/DOS C:/DOS/RUN RUN/DOS/RUN
|
Senior Member
|
13. May 2009 @ 20:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Now the specs you mention I would never approve for any version of Vista, on your other point UAC is very important tool for many users who just don't understand how drive by installs can happen. My buyers like it and its only a matter of how many miliseconds to respond to it during a desired install? Networking I found to be easier under Vista once I understood how to use the configuration tool to allow sharing of files and printers. All Vista requires is for you to get used to a different method of using the software. I compare it to learing automatic and stick shift, and it's much easier to go from XP to Vista than to go from Windows to Mac. I had alot of buyers who had Mac attacks...lol tongue solidly in cheek. With the popularity uptick having no idea how different computing would be and how many of thier games wouldn't work they took the plunge only to want Windows back. Omg I might get flamed by Mac lovers...no intention there I think its a good OS just many average to newbie users switched and became unhappy at least in my customer base.
pokin'around
|
|
zooom1834
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. May 2009 @ 21:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
I just dont get it Elliot, 99% of the internet and 99 percent of users hate vista. Its so bad they even redesigned it into windows 7. Which YES is a much better faster cleaner operating system.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. May 2009 @ 22:56 |
Link to this message
|
Not a pro Vista user here just because of it's huge size and that UAC, among other thing's but in checking Vista, XP and W7, it is, by far, the fastest OS with XP and W7 about the same. I found W7 just to be a newer, slower and smaller version of Vista but with VLite, they're about the same with the nod going to Vista. Can't believe I even said that and I think W7 will be a big success. I do believe that a computer with high end spec's will run Vista better and most user's didn't have that then.
|
|
jony218
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. May 2009 @ 23:32 |
Link to this message
|
I've tried windows 7 and it looks good. I'm using it on a amd 3000 1gb ram. I also installed xp pro sp3 on it just to compare it on the same hardware.
Windows 7 is more "xp like" than vista especially when you disable the UAC. It runs slower than XP but has run almost every program I installed on it. I prefer the AERO interface better than XP, but I rather have the speed of XP.
With more RAM and a dualcore I'm sure Windows 7 will run just as fast as XP, that will be my next test.
I found a program "winstep xtreme" that produces the thumbnails on the taskbar like windows 7. That's a feature I really liked from windows 7. It is possible to have many of the "window dressing" features from vista/7 on XP.
Heres is a list of some software that has been tested to work on windows 7.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=241811
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. May 2009 @ 00:30 |
Link to this message
|
Using 4 G of RAM and an AMD 6400 here. Didn't see any difference in speed, thought W7 was a bit slower than XP but wasn't sure. All my program's did run on W7: a Bitrate Calculator I use wouldn't run on Vista and a couple of program's that support Vista would only run in compatability mode but other than that, no big surprise's. I do wish W7 was faster, that is a big deal to me, maybe it's a hardware issue.
|
Senior Member
|
14. May 2009 @ 00:34 |
Link to this message
|
@zoom when you say 99% you have to take into account more than 50% make their negative claim to Vista based on what someone else said. I participate in lots of discussions over at zdnet and alot and I mean alot of people are very happy with Vista and the Mojave Expirement conducted by Microsoft showed the same results. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mojave-experiment/ here is another link to what someone else had to say http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=654 I would like to add when Vista debuted many many OEMs like HP, DELL, SONY, ETC... were trying to push out existing stock designed to play XP with 512 to 1gb ram an even older IGP chipsets, for instance my HP 7030 laptop came with AMD X2 1.6ghz tk-55 on Nvidia 6100z with 1gb ram and Vista Home Premium using shared graphics of 256mbs so ok the chipset wasn't the worst but sharing that ram on 1gb with Home Premium is rediculous. Now when you look at laptops they are running far better video chipsets but if you look at a laptop selling for a mere $399-449 it has 2gb-3gb ram, processors are still about the same most are at least 2ghz with 2 cores. That makes a huge performance difference in addition many laptops & desktops had horrible DDR2 PC3200/400mhz or PC4200/533mhz I would never build that machine for any of my buyers now laptops have more limits than desktops and my laptop now runs 2gbram pc5300/667mhz and my desktops all run pc6400/800mhz. That makes all the difference in the world, along with that a single core processor should not be running anything beyond Home Basic IMHO. You have to keep things in perpective and many ppl just don't like change. I have used Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, now Vista and I have kicked the tires on W7 but will stick with Vista I don't feel like I have gotten my return yet on the original investment. W7 is more of a marketing reply to all those Mac commercials it's hard to overcome negative momentum over the long haul and MS is making a move to increase revenue, I Don't have a problem with that infact you can now buy Vista very very cheaply on lots of auctions sites and amazon infact cheaper than XP. Ram and storage are at an all time low in cost and great advancements have been made in motherboard technology as an AMD FANBOY I am particularly encouraged by the AMD 780 & 790 chipsets, Nvidia 8100-8300 chipsets and new hybrid graphics technology. These of course will run well on Vista and W7 and in order to reap the benefits of the chipsets you cannot use XP. Developers have caught up to the new operating systems something not so when Vista debuted.
pokin'around
|
Senior Member
|
14. May 2009 @ 00:43 |
Link to this message
|
pokin'around
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
14. May 2009 @ 04:52 |
Link to this message
|
It's just fista with a different skin on it.. wait for the retail.. just like fista.. what you get as a beta or an rc is nothing like the retail will be... they just want everybody to debug the crap for free.. and work out how people will get around the drm.
It's been exploited already.. no improvement.. stay with xp and ignore.
|
|
zooom1834
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. May 2009 @ 18:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
@elliot,If microsoft and everyone loves vista so much, How come theres a windows 7.
|
Senior Member
|
14. May 2009 @ 19:43 |
Link to this message
|
that is like asking why there is a vista if xp is so great or why there was an xp when everyon loved windows 98 second edition so much...progress, future hardware compatibility. I beleive I stated in my long winded reply that they are trying to overcome negative momentum caused by ppl who didn't like it, couldn't understan it, couldn't get used to it, not to mention a very aggressive campaign by Apple. A simple google search reveals how many people like Vista here are some links http://blah.winsmarts.com/2008-5-I_actually_like_Vista_now.aspx and here is another http://hothardware.com/News/Once-Trickin...ers-Like-Vista/ the key to any of the links is to read the comments left by others yes there are haters and ppl who like it ergo its not 99% or 90% who hate it...lastly all I can tell you is W7 is a slimmed down version of Vista it installs the same way, loads the same way has the same Aero once refered to as eye candy well W7 has even more eye candy with a new bigger taskbar.
I would also like to add there are some great Motherboard Video Graphics technologies like hybrid sli & hybrid Crossfire that only work in Vista and pretty sure they will work in W7 that don't work in XP. I have been using Vista since before release as a beta tester at that time I was using a Celeron 3.2ghz socket 478 now I have an AMD/ATI 780G mobo with an AMD KUMA 2.7ghz X2 with L3 cache found in the Phenom Vista Ultimate worked fine under both systems of course it really works much better now. I have been installing Windows Vista since the release of SP1 on all my custom builds about 2-3 per month my not one buyer has ever comeback to say please put XP on my system quite frankly they say they like it but had heard nothing but negative things and its those I heard negative things that has lead Microsoft to move to W7 in the general reason for this is for Enterprise Sales as that is were they make the most profit.
pokin'around
|
|
zooom1834
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. May 2009 @ 22:03 |
Link to this message
|
http://apcmag.com/10_reasons_not_to_get_vista.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista
badvista.fsf.org
www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=900082
These are just 4 links... I never knew there was a whole website about vista being horrible let alone a wiki over it.
|
Senior Member
|
15. May 2009 @ 01:45 |
Link to this message
|
Well we can kick this around forever but here are few more links some from the same sources you found that were against Vista even a wiki correction stating the other article was written by a Mac Fanboy...gosh who knew wiki's can be written by just about anyone ahh one of the reasons college professors say cross check the data.
Here is an excerpt from the wiki I found.
" To say Vista is a bad OS because you do not know how to use it or configure it is very bad analysis. I personally have used the OS for 1.5 years and it has not given one problem, not even spyware that plagued XP. Vista has had major improvements in security. Windows XP when first released was a target of major viruses such as blaster and sassir. Vista has had no major viruses and it has been out much longer than XP when it was attacked. The reason for the negative tilt is because most major news editors use Mac computers and there is a general popularity spike for Macs because of the huge success of iPods. Since many people buy iPods, kids will in many times buy Macs just to pair up with their iPod. Look, this does not really need to be mentioned in a Vista article. Put it in the Mac article that it has had a boost because of iPods --- get it? Vista is doing very well, but one reason it is not doing even better is because of the requirements. Corporate PCs have low-end graphics hardware and Vista has a 3D interface. Corporate IT admins know this and are not going to deploy Vista unless they order new computers. Another reason some business downgrade to XP is not because Vista is bad but because XP does the job and they want their users to have a familiar look and feel. Believe me, Vista is going to come around and it does not have to wait for the next version of Windows as so many say. It is more powerful, more stable, and performance does not degrade over time due to spyware. All of these things will cause Vista to become the standard OS, if not already considered standard. WinCEB (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC) "
My original point was to say 99% hate it was false and untrue.
I believe between us we have given folks enough info for them to make thier own decision. http://apcmag.com/10_reasons_you_should_get_vista.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:G...Windows_Vista/1
pokin'around
|
Moderator
|
28. May 2009 @ 13:41 |
Link to this message
|
I posted a short reply on W7 here ~ http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_jump.cfm/771326/4689371
Suffice it to say that XP has had a very long life, and if Vista was half decent it wouldn't be for the chop and about to be superceded by Windows 7 after something feeble like a 3year lifespan. Other than that i can't comment on Vista personally as i stayed away from it as my PC's were all too slow for anything faster than XP and i only went Quad and Dual Core in late 2007. Personally i wouldn't have gone near Vista anyway, it's bad points bothered me far more than it's good points, and (to me anyway) the proof is in the pudding, ie Windows 7 is almost upon us and is about to replace Vista. To sum it up, Windows 7 is what Vista should have been in the first place.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules *** |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. May 2009 @ 05:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've moved all my systems to WIN7x64...it is way better than Vista64, and it's even better than XP64 in a few important ways. It supports many devices that are never got XP64 drivers, and it also has a very nice media center (unlike Vista and XP media centers, this one actualy works). Speed-wise, it is a hair slower than XP64 for most things, but programs that use more than one core seem to run a bit faster than on XP64. Win7 still needs tweeking to make it work right...but so does XP64.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. May 2009 @ 15:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
To sum it up, Windows 7 is what Vista should have been in the first place.
How totally I agree. Had Vista and went back to XP, swearing I would not give it up. Built a new PC and installed XP, then Win7 RC came out and I installed that so I could dual boot and am really impressed...it is fast, not a resource hog, stable and is running all my older programs even Shrink/Decrypter. Only thing I am unable to do is record streaming audio and I am sure that will be worked out. But I can always use XP for that. I will even buy the OS when it comes out, and for me who is cheap, it says a lot.
|
