7 faster than vista? - a tiny bit maybe

[H2SO4]

No. The genetic differentiation is actually much less. Poetic license applied.

It only figures that you would be the one to call that.

Kudos.

It's hard not to feel extra-chuffed about that compliment when it comes from a man who just corrected somebody for calling a chimp a monkey. Thanks

 

[reece86]

what ram did people have on their pc's when vista first came out if you said vista machines had 1gb?

 

[jimbo45]

...Even if MS changed only 10% of Vista to make W7, they changed the right 10%.

Similar to the 10% change in DNA between a chimp and a human.

And a monkey is still a monkey... :roflmao:

I think Chimps actually have 97% of the same DNA as a human -- I'm not a biologist but I'm sure I've seen these figures in a respectable magazine like "New Scientist" somewhere.

And of course it's still a "Simian" actually -- not a Monkey as another poster has pointed out.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Tews]

Similar to the 10% change in DNA between a chimp and a human.

And a monkey is still a monkey... :roflmao:

I think Chimps actually have 97% of the same DNA as a human -- I'm not a biologist but I'm sure I've seen these figures in a respectable magazine like "New Scientist" somewhere.

And of course it's still a "Simian" actually -- not a Monkey as another poster has pointed out.

Cheers
jimbo

As long as we're being techincal, it is a Pan troglodytes..

 

[SquonkSC]

As long as we're being techincal, it is a Pan troglodytes..

It's technical!

 

[Antman]

And a monkey is still a monkey... :roflmao:

I think Chimps actually have 97% of the same DNA as a human -- I'm not a biologist but I'm sure I've seen these figures in a respectable magazine like "New Scientist" somewhere.

And of course it's still a "Simian" actually -- not a Monkey as another poster has pointed out.

Cheers
jimbo

As long as we're being techincal, it is a Pan troglodytes..

I wish we were neighbors. I would invite you over to enjoy my beautiful wife's delicious cooking. And throw eggs at your house.

 

[AstaLaVista]

So!, to recap... Win 7 faster and better than Vista then! Just what I thought

 

[dsteinschneider]

The netflix silverlight based app runs much better on Windows 7 for some reason - same 7 year old laptop 2ghz p4 1GB RAM with identical apps.

 

[musiclover7]

I think Microsoft unraveling the dispatcher lock issue is one of the key factors that makes 7 seem faster. Now, when one thread ties up the system, none of the others have to "wait". The way this used to look in the real world Vista, was an undesire-able freeze here and there, where Vista appeared to be stuck choking on itself. I do not see this particular issue much at all in 7, and for that reason, the OS seems snappy and faster..

 

[SIW2]

More fuel for the fire:

a brand-new machine running Windows 7 takes a minute and 34 seconds to become usable, as compared to a minute and 6 seconds for Windows Vista.

Study: Windows 7 doesn't boot faster | Beyond Binary - CNET News

 

[SIW2]

So!, to recap... Win 7 faster and better than Vista then! Just what I thought

Did you read the article?

 

[SIW2]

Even more - this should hot things up:devil2:

Performance
Windows 7 feels faster than Windows XP and Vista, but it turns out that's not always the case--sometimes, it's the slowest out of the three operating systems. CNET Labs tested four 32-bit Windows operating systems: Windows 7 RTM build 7600, Windows 7 Release Candidate build 7100, Windows Vista with Service Pack 2, and Windows XP SP3...

See the performance paragraph further down the page:

Microsoft Windows 7 (Professional) Window reviews - CNET Reviews

 

[pparks1]

For me, at the end of the day, it's speed coupled with functionality that matters. I mean, I could install Windows 3.1 on my current box and I'm sure it would start up windows in less than 2 seconds....but who cares.

XP should be faster, as it's smaller, has fewer features, has fewer security precautions, has less eye candy, etc. I'm willing to give up some seconds here and there for those extras.

 

[Antman]

 

[Antman]

I don't think the OP is saying anything negative about 7, nor arguing superiority of any OS vs another.

Just pointing to the sky and saying, "Look, clouds. And it's still a sunny day."

 

[SIW2]

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.

 

[AstaLaVista]

So!, to recap... Win 7 faster and better than Vista then! Just what I thought

Did you read the article?

Which one the many posted here are you referring to?

But, besides, WHY? Does it really Matter? I already stated that my "Seat of the Pants" benchamarks say otherwise and since that is what really matters to me, Win 7 wins hand down over Vista... FOR WHAT i USE IT FOR AT LEAST... that's all I am saying, why is it so hard to accept it fellas? :huh:

Well, to be frank, I was trying to be a bit funny with that remark, but as usual, I make an easy task hard to understand... even with smilies and all!

For me, at the end of the day, it's speed coupled with functionality that matters. I mean, I could install Windows 3.1 on my current box and I'm sure it would start up windows in less than 2 seconds....but who cares.

XP should be faster, as it's smaller, has fewer features, has fewer security precautions, has less eye candy, etc. I'm willing to give up some seconds here and there for those extras.

+1

I am still going to go back to XP instead of Vista just because the incompatability with some hardware I have... old scanner and printer drivers not Vista compatible.


I just don't get it though, if a guy is happy with Win 7 over Vista, why do some of you folks try to pry him off of that cloud? :shock:

 

[SIW2]

It's whatever works for you - you are exactly right.

Some, however, are implying that other o/s are bad.

 

[pparks1]

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.

 

[SIW2]

Hi pp,

We just don't get it do we?

Most users couldn't care less. They buy a pc because it is pretty/small/has a big screen/whatever.

It just happens to have windows on it. It does what they want - they know how to make it do those things. That's it.

They are not in the least bit interested if one o/s is better than another - they have no interest in trying them out to see - they can't imagine anything worse than having to backup, reinstall - update, put the apps back , transfer their data back etc.

They don't know how - they don't want to know how.

If there are 1.3 billion Windows users - that accounts for 1.27 billion of them.