Seven or XP?

[SquonkSC]

Let the numbers speak for them selves.

100 for Win7, 12 for XP



How ever right or wrong you all may be about speed, usability, etc.

It's dust in the wind.

The majority likes 7 better.

There is no arguing with personal preference or taste.

.

 

[Konceptz804]

you cannot be serious.... nobody is denying that xp is a fast lean OS. We're simply saying that W7 is a faster leaner OS despite all the eye candy and ridiculously good looks.

W7 x64 and i'll never go back.

 

[Tews]

Give 7 twelve months to iron out the few bugs that remain ... then run the tests... 7 will be the obvious choice...

 

[SquonkSC]

you cannot be serious.... nobody is denying that xp is a fast lean OS. We're simply saying that W7 is a faster leaner OS despite all the eye candy and ridiculously good looks.

W7 x64 and i'll never go back.

Use the quote button Konceptz804,

Then people can see who's comment you are referring to.

greetz

 

[ten]

you cannot be serious.... nobody is denying that xp is a fast lean OS. We're simply saying that W7 is a faster leaner OS despite all the eye candy and ridiculously good looks.

huh? :huh:

The majority likes 7 better

I'm truly shocked the XP has 10% of the vote. Remember where we are.

 

[SquonkSC]

I'm truly shocked the XP has 10% of the vote. Remember where we are.

Remember where you are!

We are obviously here because we like Win7.
Would be a bit stupid to spend all our time here, and not like Win7.

I would be helping people on XP forum, if I liked XP better.

Why are you here, by the way?

 

[ten]

Why? Do I bother you?

 

[Antman]

OK, I will play. I use XP and Win7 everyday. I simply do not experience a difference in performance or stability. Both are equally responsive. The tasks that I use each for are accomplished equally.

I ran a couple of different benchmarks on XP in the past. Each time I got similar results - "That's interesting and nearly meaningless information with no practical application." Benchmarking hardware is a different matter.

Maybe, I don't get it.

Just a pun, Z.

 

[SquonkSC]

Why? Do I bother you?

I asked first. You didn't answer.

Probably you haven't figured that one out yet yourself.

I'll give you a few days to ponder on it.

And yes, negative comments for the soul purpose of being negative bother me.

 

[noyb]

Why are you here, by the way?

Trying to figure out how to hack W7 to put all the good XP tools back in ..
that M$ doesn't seem to think we need.
Two hacked - several more to go.

 

[Zidane24]

Benchmarks are not about 'fairness' - They're about "what-is".

XP + SP3, is.

XP + SP2, is.

XP + SP1, is, and so are all the rest, on down...

If people choose to, they can "benchmark" any version of Windows 7, from build 7600 (the 'real' thing) ,
down through 7100, Beta, or whatever the hell they want to.

"Benchmarks" have always been biased, one way or the other,
usually by the "Independent Agency" conducting the "benchmark".

Most people do not have the 'technical expertise' to initiate their own,
nor do they have knowledge or resources to pit one against the other, keeping all things equal.

You neglect to acknowledge the fact that the "3SPs + 9 years of refinement" heavily contributed to the development of the "Pre-Release OS".

Your post of "non-information" makes one assume that the XP operating system fared better than the competitor.

I haven't read any of the re-iterations , but I certainly do fit into the category of "...yet people still don't get it".

XP and 7 are two completey different OSes, both under the hood and in appearence. XP had a 5.x kernel while Vista and 7 share the 6.x kernel. If you said that Vista heavily contributed to the development of 7 than you would be absolutely correct...remember than even Vista wasn't based on XP as that development was reset. You want me to list out benchmarks here but why should I waste time..."Windows XP SP2 vs Windows Vista SP2 vs Windows 7 RTM" in google will get you all the information you want

 

[Antman]

Why are you here,...

Why? Do I bother you?

Don't look a contrarian in the mind's eye.

 

[Zidane24]

OK, I will play. I use XP and Win7 everyday. I simply do not experience a difference in performance or stability. Both are equally responsive. The tasks that I use each for are accomplished equally.

I ran a couple of different benchmarks on XP in the past. Each time I got similar results - "That's interesting and nearly meaningless information with no practical application." Benchmarking hardware is a different matter.

Maybe, I don't get it.

Just a pun, Z.

lmao I was wondering when you were going to jump in on this Antman

 

[Antman]

Windows on multicore test results | Business - InfoWorld

Author: Randall C. Kennedy

 

[Zidane24]

Author: Randall C. Kennedy

lmao...that is funny that members posted news from him...remember folks he is extrmeley biased about XP and haas been known to post bogus articles...just check the forums on his supposed showstopper bug that would prevent 7 from being released...a chkdsk error that really doesn't exist

 

[Tews]

Author: Randall C. Kennedy

And we all know that's a reputable source ... :roflmao:

 

[masterB]

And we all know that's a reputable source ... :roflmao:

 

[SquonkSC]

Trying to figure out how to hack W7 to put all the good XP tools back in ..
that M$ doesn't seem to think we need.
Two hacked - several more to go.

1. You are misusing my quote. I didn't ask you but "zero man".

2. If you succeeded with those two builds, what exactly is your problem?, Maybe I can help you?

3. Installing Win7, not liking it but staying with it nevertheless, subscribing to sevenforum, post your grievances with win7, glorifying XP, but still sticking with Win7, seems kind of stupid to me, not to mention "not helpful" and kind of "insulting" to the people doing hard work in here to help others.

It looks a bit like:
"crapping on the porch of your neighbor and ringing the doorbell to ask for toilet paper"

note:
If you didn't post any negative comments for the soul purpose of being negative,
then point 3. does not apply to you.

greetz


.

 

[Antman]

lmao I was wondering when you were going to jump in on this Antman

I think you are misinterpreting one aspect of something ChuckR said.

...You neglect to acknowledge the fact that the "3SPs + 9 years of refinement" heavily contributed to the development of the "Pre-Release OS"...

I read, Windows 7 a new bag of candy. A variation on a theme.

On the surface, it may seem that ChuckR is hitting you a bit too hard, he is not. He is hitting you on the wrong cheek. ChuckR argues that Windows is Windows, built on a compromised technology.

In a manner of speaking, most of the respondents are describing a building that they have studied by looking out the window(s).

 

[Zidane24]

I think you are misinterpreting one aspect of something ChuckR said.

...You neglect to acknowledge the fact that the "3SPs + 9 years of refinement" heavily contributed to the development of the "Pre-Release OS"...

I read, Windows 7 a new bag of candy. A variation on a theme.

On the surface, it may seem that ChuckR is hitting you a bit too hard, he is not. He is hitting you on the wrong cheek. ChuckR argues that Windows is Windows, built on a compromised technology.

In a manner of speaking, most of the respondents are describing a building that they have studied by looking out the window(s).

I see your argument there and can see how that statement could have been applied