Windows 7: Just compared Vista with Windows 7 - Poor Vista

I just had to post this.
It's been a little while since I used Vista now. I purchased Vista a long time ago ( Vista Home Premium x64 ) and I decided to go back to my original XP Home Edition as Vista was generally a pain in the ass! Anyway, as I have been using Windows 7 now for a couple of weeks or more, I thought I'd just try out Vista on my spare hard drive I have lying around. Oh dear, oh dear. Now I remember why I dumped Vista! lol. The BIGGEST annoyance for me was the way that Vista would constantly access the hard drive even when I wasn't doing anything. And it wasn't just accessing it a little bit, it went hell for leather at it! Guess what? Oh yes, it was off again! It goes on for bloody ages too. It's not updates or anything else either as I have got Vista bang up to date. Even installed the RC of Service Pack 2 too! So pulled out the drive from my drive caddy and put in my Windows 7 x64 Build 7057, and ahhhh... bliss!

I'll be so glad when Windows 7 is out. Hey, I wanna be first in the queue!! lol.

This is my only gripe with Vista. Vista after some tweeking is the best OS I've used from M$. It might be the eye candy, DX10, Search, gadgets, or the overall experience of Vista that makes me think that way, but when I go to work and boot XP, I think to myself, I used to love this OS, now I can't wait to go home, and mess with Vista.

Then there's 7. If XP and Vista had a baby, and that baby was on steriods, it would be lucky number 7.

Hi,

Vista always worked great for me - still does.

Boots faster than 7 too. I modified it a lot - similar to some of the things they have done with 7.

A few people have had problems with disk activity on Vista - not sure why - never was a problem for me.

There is some activity with the hd , but no different from what I get with 7.

In fact , after I booted into 7 today, I could hear the drive working for a good few minutes.

Vista x86 w/sp2 and Windows 7 x86 7057 dual-booting here.
Both run good and Vista is just a hair slower (not by much).
Of course this may vary by system hardware, user, etc.

Vista is the biz, and SEVEN is here just to prove it.

For the most part Vista worked well for me also after a bit of tweaking. Windows 7 seems more solid to me and has some nice looking upgrades and is just a better user experiance all the way around. I also noticed much faster file transfers on the network with 7048 and 7057.

lol Yep.

I find Vista can take between 5-15 mins for all the caching, pre-fetching to settle down after a re-boot.

Seven does the same, but in a much less intrusive way. The service-staggering is much better implemented.

Don't forget that Vista HD activity will be quite intensive right after a fresh install. So too with Seven.

Both Vista and Seven will have extended periods of HD activity when the index is being run for the first time, or you have moved or deleted large amounts of files.

Just watch the resource monitor>disk after a restart to compare activity.

My Vista is now locked away in a cold dark cupboard never to see the light of day again! lol. (Sad isn't it? Not)

Bring on Windows 7!!

This drove me nuts about Windows Vista too. So much so that I spent hours scouring various forums and tweaking/stripping Vista down... removing indexing, shadow copies, RDC, backup services, etc... countess reinstalls...

In the end, I found out what was causing my HD activity LED to blink 24/7... It was Vista constantly polling my SATA DVD ROM drive. I just disabled the drive in the devices tab whenever it wasn't in use. I think certain SATA drive / mobo combos caused this problem.

I have not had this problem.... Or I am just too busy to notice. Plus, my case is loud, and I ALWAYS have music playing (loudly).

NO!!!!!! I AM GOING TO BE FIRST!!!!!!!!



~Lordbob