New
#11
"As much as I reinstall Windows over and over, I hate to use up the activation limit (then need to call up Microsoft to fix it)."
I've reached that point, but I can't figure out what phone number to call to fix it! Help!
I respectfully disagree, with you and the Vista-loving moderator.
It is NOT ignorance, nor stupidity, to have a beef with an OS that runs like crap on a system like mine. While not the fastest system, my quad-core setup (overclocked to 3.6Ghz with 4GB of quality RAM) should be MORE than enough to handle Vista. And yet Vista runs poorly, even on a fresh install. There is simply no excuse for an OS that needs THAT much horsepower to run decently. Hell, I NEVER had it run decently, even when it was installed on a RAID0 array. This is not a grudge, it's objective assessment. :) I've been using MS products since DOS, and Vista is the second-worst OS MS has ever released (#1 being WindowsME).
Thank god Windows 7 seems to have the performance Vista SHOULD have had. Of course, I fully expect the retail release to be slower than the RCs, but one can hope right?
Bart
Last edited by Bartacus; 14 Jul 2009 at 17:48. Reason: Added more babbling
If Vista is so good OS and you guys invested money in it why you people want to upgrade to W7?
Answer: Vista was a joke and it will be dead in a few months.
XP still selling and is suported until 2014. :)
I really don't think 7600 is the RTM as people were saying.
Update on Windows 7 RTM - Windows 7 Team Blog - The Windows Blog
Article above.
From a purely technical sense Vista is superior to XP. They started with the same kernel (I know I use kernel liberally since technically Windows does not use a kernel) and file by file made the operating system more comprehensive. They did this to excess in some cases, but I don't think that is a major flaw. If you don't want a highly configurable system, please use OS X (where you have to reprogram to make any significant changes).
If you know how to use an operating system properly, you can make Vista run almost identically to XP, but NOT vice versa, primarily by closing functionality. Personally, I am an operating system minimalist, I turn of any advanced functions of the GUI first (so all my Windows installations looked like Win 2k) and I disable and modify services. I had Vista running light (~315MB) and it was noticeably faster than XP, and far far more functional.
Also, Vista was designed with much more comprehensive security. It has had the fewest major security flaws in its first year of release of any consumer OS to date. XP and XP SP1 were some of the worst even having been built upon 2000 (which is superior to XP in many ways IMO).
Remember, 7 is in most ways just a streamlined Vista. It's an evolution of Vista while Vista was much more revolutionary in terms of core files. You can almost consider it to be Vista SP2 with a prettier skin.