But, aside from looks and new features, is it better?

[submarinus]

In basic reliability (stability and [snort] simplicity) how much (if any) better is W7 than XP?
Years ago I concluded XP was the sweet spot between Linux complexity and Mac oversimplification [OS simpler yes, but only because many tasks banned]. I still think so, but XP is just too unstable [something is always! breaking] and is a sour joke of complexity ["contact your IT administrator" -yeah right!] and explained. XP features either don't work consistently, are a pain to use, and/or are really badly explained.
There's a joke: "A helicopter is a collection of parts flying in loose formation." XP too. It cost me $200? up front, but since then thousands of dollars of my time wasted on maintenance and fixing its numerous self-made disasters. I'm tired of eating my money. The only alternative to slashing my computer use [groan] seems to be W7.
But the previews i've seen obsess on features, are silent on the essentials of usability and reliability.
So i'm asking you to step back, consider if Windows 7 really better at all.
Please, if you don't mind: tell me in percentage terms [i.e. 60%].

Skeleton walks into a bar, orders a beer and a mop.
Why are computers like the old testament God? Lots of rules and very unforgiving.

 

[dook]

If you've had such problems with XP, why haven't you used Vista?

 

[Lee]

Not sure why you stayed with XP if it was such a problem. There were other alternatives out there in the wild you could of used. Not an Apple fan, however, it seems that OS X, or a more up-to-date linux would have been better for you. Win 7 is a large step forward for Microsoft, and far easier to use then XP. Win 7 is Microsoft's new Win 95; something that a great deal of Windows users have been waiting for. :huh:

 

[mickey megabyte]

win 7 is loads better than xp in terms of security and stability from where i am typing.

usability is something that grows with experience - if you come to 7 straight from xp, it will take you a while to find your way around the control panel etc, and the file system has changed somewhat. i've heard some people say that vista or 7 is crap because they can't find things, or they don't know how to do x,y or z; but i don't pay much attention to those folks.

once you've learned the new ways of doing things, i doubt many people would want to go back to the old!

i occasionally have to deal with xp, even 9x machines, and i'm glad when i get back to my lovely 7!

 

[Lee]

All your reasoning are on the mark "Mickey". Cannot ever see myself going backwards to any other Windows OS. Now having said that, I do have VM Ware's workstation on my computer with XP, and 2000 just in case. In case of what I don't no.

 

[Arkhan]

I've been trying out a bunch of the windows 7 builds. Overall, it's more stable and substantially faster than vista (especially when dealing with network tools and files).
It's marginally faster than XP, but not massively so. The driver support is WAY better on modern hardware though - no F6 and a floppy disc/hand-built ISO to install on sata for a start...

There's been a couple of bugs, mainly drivers; my media centre pc is a bit unreliable coming back from sleep, but it's substantially more reliable than vista. Compared to XP when it first came out? Way more reliable. Compared to XP fully patched on SP3 with mature drivers? Hmm, close.

So windows 7 - what vista *should* have been. It's pretty much at the reliability of current XP (which I've found very solid the last couple of years), which some boxes more, some less. A bit faster than XP, with a bunch more features and much prettier. DirectX 10 too, of course. Much, much nicer when you have to support a lot of PCs.

Most of my PCs were xp/vista/linux boxes. Now they're XP/7 boxes, and I spend well over 90% of my time in 7. I doubt I'll ever install vista again on a PC I own, unless it's on the path to a 7 upgrade...

 

[win7noob]

If you've had such problems with XP, why haven't you used Vista?

because he was Mojaved

 

[zigzag3143]

is it better

In basic reliability (stability and [snort] simplicity) how much (if any) better is W7 than XP?
Years ago I concluded XP was the sweet spot between Linux complexity and Mac oversimplification [OS simpler yes, but only because many tasks banned]. I still think so, but XP is just too unstable [something is always! breaking] and is a sour joke of complexity ["contact your IT administrator" -yeah right!] and explained. XP features either don't work consistently, are a pain to use, and/or are really badly explained.
There's a joke: "A helicopter is a collection of parts flying in loose formation." XP too. It cost me $200? up front, but since then thousands of dollars of my time wasted on maintenance and fixing its numerous self-made disasters. I'm tired of eating my money. The only alternative to slashing my computer use [groan] seems to be W7.
But the previews i've seen obsess on features, are silent on the essentials of usability and reliability.
So i'm asking you to step back, consider if Windows 7 really better at all.
Please, if you don't mind: tell me in percentage terms [i.e. 60%].

Skeleton walks into a bar, orders a beer and a mop.
Why are computers like the old testament God? Lots of rules and very unforgiving.

Hi and welcome to sevenforums

Is it better than XP, yes and no. Lightyears better than vista, quicker than xp, and most of all its reliable. On a day to day basis I deal with ppl who have problems with win 7 but in large part once you own win 7 and make it the way you want it, its bulletproof. I have not had a BSOD, had to recover from a backup, or had many problems.

Yeah I have had driver issues, and a few problems but win 7 is still beta. I almost gave up on MS because of vista but Im in the fold again.

Hope this hlps

Ken

 

[dook]

See i don't see this lightyears better than vista crap. My vista x64 is solid as hell and it is faster at the minute since windows 7. Have you all tried vista with sp2 on? It really is snappy, it's well supported now, it's quite secure.

It definately pisses all over XP. Seriously, if you hate it you should take another look.

 

[metoo]

See i don't see this lightyears better than vista crap. My vista x64 is solid as hell and it is faster at the minute since windows 7. Have you all tried vista with sp2 on? It really is snappy, it's well supported now, it's quite secure.

It definately pisses all over XP. Seriously, if you hate it you should take another look.

You obviously have a truck load of RAM if you run Vista x64, I'm just wondering if it is XP x64 you are comparing with or the x86 version which won't be utilizing all the RAM?

I personally couldn't think of a bigger waste of time than to look at vista again, I mean why bother?

 

[sjaak327]

See i don't see this lightyears better than vista crap. My vista x64 is solid as hell and it is faster at the minute since windows 7. Have you all tried vista with sp2 on? It really is snappy, it's well supported now, it's quite secure.

It definately pisses all over XP. Seriously, if you hate it you should take another look.

Me neither, it is simply FUD, lies and bull****. Windows 7 is for a very large part Vista, there is really no doubt or discussion needed. So it isn't lightyears ahead of Vista, just about 2.5 years actually....

The question if Windows 7 is better then XP, well, shame on the OP for even asking the question, it is indeed lightyears ahead of XP, but so was Vista. It is a shame, that some people apparenlty had such a bad experience with it to continue uttering the FUD about Vista.

Mostly people that do that, have either ran Vista for a short while on crappy hardware, or haven't ran it at all.

My Vista X64 is rock solid on 4.5 year old hardware, my media Centre PC is a Dell Optiplex GX260, (from december 2002 !) and runs Vista X86 fine (the only upgrade I did was a cheap memory upgrade and a 30 euro videocard).

The subject of this thread should really be a comparison between Vista and Windows 7, as the reasons for upgrading from XP to Windows 7 are clear, even if it was just for security.

 

[gzt7d8]

The OS is so much faster on my 5 year old machine than Vista. I was pleasantly surprised and have already placed 2 pre-orders for the release in October, one for my Dell XPS 600 and the wife's Alienware Laptop.

I can't wait to see how it runs on a more update-to-date PC.

Greg

 

[dook]

You obviously have a truck load of RAM if you run Vista x64, I'm just wondering if it is XP x64 you are comparing with or the x86 version which won't be utilizing all the RAM?

I personally couldn't think of a bigger waste of time than to look at vista again, I mean why bother?

lol I obviously have a truck load of RAM. I have 8 gigs of RAM. When i first started on Vista (x86) I had 1 GIG of ram. It ran perfectly fine - i ditched XP for it. At the time as well it was 2000x more secure than XP.

I'm absolutley sick to **** of these people saying "You must have all this ram..." It's £35 for 4 gigs of ram. How do you possibly have an excuse to not have a good amount of ram in your computer? You can't afford £35?!!? Anybody who works can afford £35. Most bums can afford £35.

 

[SIW2]

See i don't see this lightyears better than vista crap. My vista x64 is solid as hell and it is faster at the minute since windows 7. Have you all tried vista with sp2 on? It really is snappy, it's well supported now, it's quite secure.

It definately pisses all over XP. Seriously, if you hate it you should take another look.

+1.

Same for me. I have 2gb cheap Ram 667mhz.

Vista x64 runs superbly. I see no difference in speed or performance between Vista and 7 on my machine.

 

[cziu]

See i don't see this lightyears better than vista crap. My vista x64 is solid as hell and it is faster at the minute since windows 7. Have you all tried vista with sp2 on? It really is snappy, it's well supported now, it's quite secure.

It definately pisses all over XP. Seriously, if you hate it you should take another look.

Same here, my Vista X64 is also rock solid and fast, I couldn't be happier and I haven't even upgraded to SP2 yet, I'm still on SP1, not to mention that I would never go back to 32 bit, I sense in each and every way that 64 bit simply leads to more reliability under heavy use.

I've tried Windows 7 and didn't much see the "huge" performance increase that is often claimed, also more recent tests done on several sites confirm my initial thoughts.

It doesn't mean that I won't switch to Windows 7, which I will certainly do once it has SP1, all I'm saying is that the claim that Windows 7 is light-years ahead of Vista is extremely exaggerated.

 

[cziu]

I'm absolutley sick to **** of these people saying "You must have all this ram..."

Exactly, that annoys me too.. .all that rediculous whining about issues that one shouldn't have a reason to whine about...sigh

It's £35 for 4 gigs of ram.

And that's even expensive, I paid 30% less for 4GB Kingston ram and that was 3 months ago.