7 faster than vista? - a tiny bit maybe

No, we don't get it, you are completely right.

I was at the Microsoft New Efficiency event yesterday and they said, "you guys aren't real humans"....meaning our needs and interests were very different.

I love to try out new stuff...hence the reason I am so into virtualization. In fact, on my Windows 7 box tonight, under Sun Virtual Box 3.0.8, I installed Windows Server 2008R2 so that I can experiment with 1) Hyper-V and 2). Automated Windows deployment tools. I just wish that I had more machines and more time to play.

Are you using this?



It supports Sun Virtual Box

Sorry to say this Siw2 and PP, you are really nice guys but in your last few posts you both sound a bit patronizing.

If people are satisfied with XP because they are not powerusers,
and they don't appreciate the extra's Vista or W7 bring,
that doesn't make them ignorant idiots, nor pirates nor porn surfers by definition either.

Most people don't have the time, the energy or interest to invest in yet again a new OS.
A lot of them have only just gotten used to Vista.

But they might be lawyers, accountants, doctors, businessmen, etc, and they might have perfectly legal copies.
And they might just teach us a thing or two in their field of expertise.

Just thought I'd let you know how the posts came across.
(to me at least)

Greetings

You misunderstand - we are the strange ones - we are interested in things most people are not. Why should they be?

As pp said:

"you guys aren't real humans"....meaning our needs and interests were very different.

As you said:

Most people don't have the time, the energy or interest to invest in yet again a new OS.

Exactly.

No deprecation explicit or implicit.

SIW2 said:

You misunderstand - we are the strange ones - we are interested in things most people are not. Why should they be?

As pp said:

"you guys aren't real humans"....meaning our needs and interests were very different.

As you said:

Most people don't have the time, the energy or interest to invest in yet again a new OS.

Exactly.

No deprecation explicit or implicit.

Ok, sorry.

I must have misinterpreted.

Greetz

pparks1 said:

Lots of people still prefer Windows XP and I maintain this is the case because XP is easier to pirate with volume license keys and such. Vista and 7 while not impossible to pirate, are nowhere near as easy.

Also, some people just want to surf the web, look at porn and read email. So, basic computers from a few years ago with XP fit that bill perfectly without having to spend more money.

Ouch.

Sometimes, a sunk cost is more than an excuse. Countwise, most of my business customers are small businesses with no servers. Some of them are still using Penitum platforms with Win9x. They simply don't need to modernize a word processor. Of course, I want them too. It would make my life easier.

Come by the house after work tomorrow. We'll have coffee and pie. I will show you some XP machines with no porn on them.

Tews said:

Antman said:

Come by the house after work tomorrow. We'll have coffee and pie.

pparks... Antmans beautiful wife is an extraordinary cook, just have someone watching your house for mysterious flying eggs!

And don't inspect the TIF folder on the Win7 machine.

Hi there
I thought this thread had run its course

However I'll add a note that for zillions of users it really doesn't matter.

Some typical companies can quite usefully STILL use a Windows 2000 computer quite adequately for genuine business purposes.

I'll give you an example -- imagine the business is a large company distributing say Palm oil / other types of vegetable oil - some destined as Bio-fuel others for the confectionary trade etc.

The truck drivers arrive at the gate with their "tickets" - amount of product / type of product / destination etc etc.

All they have to do is go to a computer (Windows 2000 for example) that is operating in "KIOSK MODE" ( basically dedicated to a fixed application without users having to individually sign on) and type their details in.

They then go to the storage areas and receive their product.
On checkout the computer system at the checkout area issues them the various permits / paperwork required (Conformity certificates, export papers if necessary) etc etc.

Meanwhile all the stuff from the Windows 2000 computer has gone into possibly state of the art ERP systems for the companies billing, stock management, production etc etc. The old computer is just fine for this type of process - and considering the amount of hard use it will get it's probably perfect. Why use a brand new W7 expensive machine for this.

As users on a technical Forum we often get carried away with the latest and greatest and worry about whether a second or two in boot up times is significant.

For the VAST VAST majority of both business and home users these types of stats are irrelevant. A user has a "tolerance time". If for example a user has to wait more than a certain time acessing a web site they go elsewhere.

I think at times people should get a bit real.

W7 is fine, Vista pre SP1 on OLD hardware WAS a dog - no amount of arguing here can alter the fact that if you try and execute stuff on inadequate hardware - whatever the OS is running, performance will ALWAYS suffer.

Cheers

jimbo.

SIW2 said:

The differences between the two (generally in favor of 7 ) are small -
the gulf in perception between them is enormous. At least among the ill informed.

That reminds me the Mojave project regarding Vista. The Mojave Experiment#