Windows 7 ROCKS!!! Eat that APPLE!!

[spliff]

Reading IWOZ now...pretty interesting it is.

 

[Antman]

Can we please stop the Vista bashing? Just stop.

You b*sat*rds!

 

[KrullKitty]

Mmmmmm, apple

 

[windows7user]

The real problem with Vista was either not having powerful enough hardware, or the Hardware manufacturers did not make drivers for their older hardware (as a way to force upgrades). The problem with that was that people hated Vista, not the manufacturers, and didn't understand the problem.

I have to disagree. Years ago, I my family bought this computer (sorry if it seems like I'm advertising, but I'm not): eMachines Official Site - - T5088 Product Details

512MB of RAM yet the manufacturer claims it to be Vista ready? The performance was incredibly horrible (Vista -even without Aero- was using ~490MB of my 512, barely enough RAM left over to do anything else), up until I tried out Windows 7. It runs fine with 512MB of RAM plus Aero (using 320MB, enough left over to surf the web which is what I need). I later spent $100 and bought 2GB of RAM, now Vista runs fine on it. The point is the manufacturer (eMachines) built the computer way under powered for Vista. Go look up other customer reviews for other 512MB Vista machines (such asT5082) and you can see why people get fed up with Vista. Windows 7 runs nicely on machines with 512MB of RAM which Vista can't do.

 

[sjaak327]

I doubt that Windows 7 runs fine on 512mb machines, in fact even for XP 512mb is stretching it.

Unless of course you don't run anything but the OS.

 

[windows7user]

There's a whole thread about Windows 7 on 512MB of RAM with users reporting it runs fine: http://www.sevenforums.com/news/3615-how-well-does-windows-7-handle-512mb.html

As I said earlier, I ran Windows 7 fine with internet browsing with only 512MB of RAM, until I decided to buy 2GB so I can make Vista run nicely.

 

[damoh]

I was talking to someone * in the know about such matters* we had a very interesting conversation about vista and 7. Actually the similarities between the two are very close. The main diff between the the two is a better and faster GUI. Easier to navigate and the obvious and most interesting one ( to me anyway) is homegroups.
Now vista bashing people please bare in mind that Vista was a over 5 years in developement. This led to the public expecting nothing short of virtual reality from this OS. Yes vista fell short and by some way too. But considering the actual expectations from it the figures tell a diff story. Yes a lot of us have had horror stories with Vista, me too with my new laptop. But remember in a few months when you buy a computer/laptop preinstalled with 7, imagine all that crapware that will be installed. Vista was revolutionary, not a lot of people realize the effort and work and not to mention the restarting of vista from scratch half way through development to use a new kernal. Im sure if people had been waiting 5 years for 7 then opinions would be different. As it is i think vista bashers who love 7 actaully have to nod your caps to vista cos without it you would not have 7. At least 85% of 7 is actually vista. Remember that next time you vista hate and 7 celebrate

 

[Mani]

I was talking to someone * in the know about such matters* we had a very interesting conversation about vista and 7. Actually the similarities between the two are very close. The main diff between the the two is a better and faster GUI. Easier to navigate and the obvious and most interesting one ( to me anyway) is homegroups.
Now vista bashing people please bare in mind that Vista was a over 5 years in developement. This led to the public expecting nothing short of virtual reality from this OS. Yes vista fell short and by some way too. But considering the actual expectations from it the figures tell a diff story. Yes a lot of us have had horror stories with Vista, me too with my new laptop. But remember in a few months when you buy a computer/laptop preinstalled with 7, imagine all that crapware that will be installed. Vista was revolutionary, not a lot of people realize the effort and work and not to mention the restarting of vista from scratch half way through development to use a new kernal. Im sure if people had been waiting 5 years for 7 then opinions would be different. As it is i think vista bashers who love 7 actaully have to nod your caps to vista cos without it you would not have 7. At least 85% of 7 is actually vista. Remember that next time you vista hate and 7 celebrate

1. Restarting half-way through is not called a lot of work. It's called bad management.

2. How can you say we should thank Vista? If Vista was very good, Windows 7 might even have been better than what it is now...you shouldn't make what if's into facts.

3. Hardly anyone had over 1GB memory in 2006, so Vista's design was poor. Microsoft have even acknowledged this, just google it.

4. Take this example:

Company A makes a bad car, after 3 years it makes a great car.

Company B makes a very good car, after 3 years it makes a great car.

Which company has been more efficient?

Mani.

 

[skunksmash]

yes.....Vista was a resource hog, but if you had the resources you never had a problem.....

my Vista install runs like a charm, boot up is pretty slow but give it 10 mins & its just as fast (if not faster) than ''7''

there's many instances where Vista still has the edge on ''7'' just due to the fact its far more optimized ''currently'' than ''7''

pre SP1 was pretty ropey & i agree when compiling Vista they never really catered for the ''mid-range'' PC, but now Vista is a SUPER OS

 

[damoh]

1. Restarting half-way through is not called a lot of work. It's called bad management.

2. How can you say we should thank Vista? If Vista was very good, Windows 7 might even have been better than what it is now...you shouldn't make what if's into facts.

3. Hardly anyone had over 1GB memory in 2006, so Vista's design was poor. Microsoft have even acknowledged this, just google it.

4. Take this example:

Company A makes a bad car, after 3 years it makes a great car.

Company B makes a very good car, after 3 years it makes a great car.

Which company has been more efficient?

Mani.

Well yes you should thank vista. Examine 7 closly and you will see why i say that. And as far as bad management is concerened. Perhaps so, but are not most companies guilty of such things? but when you factor into it WHAT exactly they had to do, i think no-one can deny a lot of effort was put into it. 'Not a lot of work' as you put it.
And who said anything about what if's? Its not a what if. Its a pure fact.
2006? i had 2 gig. Vista IS a good operating system simple as. Yes it has problems. But as far as im concerened you should be thanking it for the development of 7. Nothing to do with efficency as you put it but ambitious plans that due to limitations of certain things then had to be changed. People want everything from an operating system, vista whilst bloated tried its best to deliver it. Notice now most of it is striped out for 7. I firmly believe 7 is what vista should have been without a doubt. LOL over time, Vista will be mentioned in the same breath as Neptune or Millenium.

 

[sjaak327]

1. Restarting half-way through is not called a lot of work. It's called bad management.

2. How can you say we should thank Vista? If Vista was very good, Windows 7 might even have been better than what it is now...you shouldn't make what if's into facts.

3. Hardly anyone had over 1GB memory in 2006, so Vista's design was poor. Microsoft have even acknowledged this, just google it.

4. Take this example:

Company A makes a bad car, after 3 years it makes a great car.

Company B makes a very good car, after 3 years it makes a great car.

Which company has been more efficient?

Mani.

1) they needed to stop to pull resource to rescue the company from the utter security hole that was XP, and at the same time made sure that Vista wouldn't suffer from the same flaws, they probably should have done it two years earlier, but at least they did make that decision.

2) the fact is that Vista IS a very good OS, no need to discuss this really, especially not if you think Windows 7 is good. Otherwise please come up with the major changes that makes Windows 7 so much better then vista, fact is, they are all minor improvements.

3) I had 2GB on my Pc one year prior to Vista being released, but besides that, how is that Microsoft fault ? The recommended requirements have always been 1GB of internal memory, and that didn't seem excessive at the time.

 

[damoh]

Agreed, if i remember right as i was part of windows xp testing and vista, the kernal had to be changed. The rebuilt the whole thing around 2003 if i remember right. Due to big security issues.And now many people are actually thanking MS for doing it. The XP kernal just couldnt cut what they wanted to do.From my point of view yes 7 is better but imagine what vista would have been like if it was as streamlined and look similar to 7? Compare the kernals of both. You will find that they share a hell of a lot.

 

[gzt7d8]

I was VERY disappointed by VISTA but it seems Microsoft is finally getting it right after the Vista Disaster.

I totally agree!!

 

[Chris90]

I LOVE WINDOWS 7

It´s the best version of windows ever !

 

[headshot]

its not necessary to said vista is bad only because windows 7 is awesome.

 

[harpua]

Win 7 is based on the vista kernal, but everything has been lovingly and exactingly optimized and further developed with great attention to detail and how people really use their computers. 7 x64 runs amazingly better for me on my 2.2 GHz Core 2 duo laptop with 4 GB ram & nvidia discrete graphics (same equip & specs as I ran Vista x64 on). Hence, I believe I am justified in thinking 7 to be a vast improvement over Vista.

However, although I found Vista sp2 (I already forget if there was an SP3 for it, if there was I installed it) frequently to be sluggish and having niggling issues I could never completely resolve, I still basically liked the OS. I just like 7 a heck of a lot more.

 

[ttremeth]

pparks1 was right

Apple people are die hard trendites. What we say or think means nothing to them as they are indoctrinated. I honestly would use Apple OS if it played games , was cheaper etc. I looked at Linux plenty of times and would use it for a cafe for example. Windows 7 will make in roads in to the XP market. Cannibalization of the market that would not go Vista and perhaps a few of the people who were temped over.

 

[zone23]

Windows 7 is a great OS so far I don't read too many people disputing that. I have never had issues running Vista either but I have more than capable hardware. People put vista down because there computers were never capable of running it. Now with newer hardware its not a problem thats the difference. A lot of people have moved to dual core and higher end video cards. I will not be upgrading machines with AMD XP processors, 512mb of RAM, and onboard video to windows 7. That is a configuration only to be run by windows xp. Windows XP was designed in a time when those were good specs not anymore. If thats what you have for a computer its time to upgrade. Why would you upgrade an OS but not the hardware?

 

[thefabe]

One of the only real things about Vista I didn't like was the annoying window that pops up everytime you try to open a program, like are you sure you really want to open this program? Well let me rethink this I did click open so let me confirm I did that and the run this program fairy didn't just try and play with my system. Oh and the DRM. I of course could be completely wrong since I have about combined 10 hrs on Vista. My moms laptop came with it so when she had a problem or a question I would have to try and learn how Vista worked compared to Xp in the few minuets I would spend on it. However if we needed to go thru Vista to get to 7 then so be it. I do belive that MS is going to get that XP user jump ship to 7 they were hopeing for with
Vista. IMHO

 

[netguysc]

I liked Vista better than XP and I like 7 better than Vista.