Convince me !

Charles Kane said:

Have to disagree - at least a bit! I built my PC on the cheap at least 4 years ago. It was all good quality, but there's no hiding its age, esp the fact that its single core. But it always ran XP OK - no complaints, tho of late things like PhotoshopCS4 started to struggle.

Whilst I haven't run benchmark tests I can say without doubt that everything runs snappier and better on the same rig under Win7! The best example is again PhotoshopCS4. It is absolutely at home. I've worked on top of the line dual core rigs only a year old and my experience there is no better within PSCS4 than on my rig.

What is noticeable is the amount of RAM the system uses - really I should say RESERVES. Its here that 7 is the out and out winner - its not the memory it uses per se but the way it manages that memory.

So its WIN WIN. Old rig - runs better, new rig runs in sync with its hardware.

I was talking in general terms. Your machine is 4 years old, but 4 years ago the common amount of memory used was 256/512 MB. of RAM and your machine have 1,5 GB. of RAM right now.
Maybe you have upgraded your RAM, but that helps Windows 7 a lot. Also, a K8 motherboard with an oldie 64 bits processor is not something that we can call an OLD computer.
Also, all we know that new Windows editions needs more RAM than processor or motherboard chipset's power. So, you can have a great motherboard with a dual-core processor, but if you doesn't have enough RAM, then the HDD will start to scratch just after every double-click you do.

grouchpunk08 said:

I definitely think he should try out Win7

I concur! Windows 7 is defintely the best OS I've ever seen Microsoft release.

grouchpunk08 said:

Well I read the NT5.0 being windows me or 2000 somewhere, i guess it was a bad source. But thats beside the point, I definitely think he should try out Win7

EDIT: Windows 2000 is NT5.0, and windows 2000 was the one that sucked, I mistakenly said windows ME instead of Windows 2000 in my last post. My bad

Windows 2000 most certainly did NOT suck. Windows 2000 was extremely successful and well regarded. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it is wrong.

PhreePhly

patio said:

Win2K was the most solid release to come out of Redmond up to this point...

I would say that AT the time, Win2K was the most solid release to come out of Redmond. Frankly Vista is a much more solid release than even Win2K was. Win2K was great for the business environment, but it still had issues with general hardware and software at the time. There were plenty of games that would not play on Win2K because the video driver model was so different than the Win9X line.

Win2K's security was good for the time, but it is certainly not good enough for today, anymore. It has all of the buffer overrun problems that XP had. It has all of the same holes that XP had in it's kernel.

Vista and Win 7, with the SDL (Security Development Lifecycle) process, are far more secure than any previous MS OS.

PhreePhly

Windows 2000 was, for its time an excellent, very stable windows platform, designed for business use. It is still deployed in some businesses I know today! Wasn't so good for gaming, but it was never intended to be.

Windows ME was a complete disaster, probably the most reviled OS in history - and with good reason. Stop-gap, ill thought out and implemented. One of the reasons public and geek trust in Microsoft was lost.