Poll: The Horrors of Windows Vista and the Wonders of Windows 7
- Thread starter MercurySteam
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sounds like you need to look at your power settings, and possibly device drivers. Is it possible that your old settings switched of LAN/WLAN cards when on battery power and not in use? Did it dim the screen? turn monitor and harddisks off faster?TheRealCJ said:
Ooohhh... shiny... Fancy gimmick is fancy. And as important as a dead bug in Africa. The security subsystems in the OS and it's ability to make users think before they ruin their computers is more important. Oh, and it's even more stable than XP.MercurySteam said:
I've really only had the Starter edition to work with and much to my chagrin it's not much better. Got a few BSODs and you can't use a personal wallpaper.
I won't rag on it too much since I understand it isn't technically the full version of Windows 7. Support for it is probably limited so eventually I'm going to upgrade up to at least Home Edition at some point if I don't buy a new computer entirely first.
I won't rag on it too much since I understand it isn't technically the full version of Windows 7. Support for it is probably limited so eventually I'm going to upgrade up to at least Home Edition at some point if I don't buy a new computer entirely first.
You can upgrade from Vista without uninstalling. Cheaper than getting a full install disk for XP. I mean, it's probably going to be better to do a clean install, but you can still just upgrade.zen5887 said:
I'm not sure what you're talking about here - the start bar? That's not context sensitive or crapola... or something you should want to remove. Are you moaning about shovelware or something? You do know that that's not the OS's fault, right?Vie said:
That's not Windows 7 - that's some shovelware your machine was either installed with by the company you bought from or which you installed yourself.27CDruid said:
Quoted for truth. Especially if you do a fresh install yourself, so there's no shovelware or anything. I tried out the beta back in the day and was instantly converted, despite initially thinking "XP's great, why bother?"Soylent Bacon said:
I dont get it. Basically Microsoft uses ever other primary release to beta test on the public in order to experiment and try new things. Each new beta version OS trys to improve the OS but typically fails because they didnt work out the bugs. Once they see what all the bugs are, they fix it and end up making a good release.
Windows 95 Was the solid Os
Win 98 was the new beta OS
They then released the stable Win 98 Second edition
Then they experimented again Win ME which was experimental and new beta, which ended up buggy and bad.
They refined the innovations from ME and then made the more stable XP.
Vista was the buggy beta for the new gen OS
Win 7 was the stable release that refined all the bugginess out of the beta that was Vista.
So theres a couple things I dont get. MS has kept with this trend for 15 years now (possibly longer, who knows, who actually used windows before 95?
)
A: Why does Microsoft release unstable experimental OSs instead of taking the time to hammer out the bugs in them?
B: Why does Microsoft expect the general public to basically pay money to do free beta testing for them?
C: Staying on this consistent track history, why havent more people picked up on this pattern and learned to avoid their unstable beta releases?
As for Vista.. honestly. its an OK OS ... NOW. But at launch and pre SP2.. it was an abysmal failure. But now.. for the most part it is an adequate OS that has been benchmarked inferior to XP. So its basically proven Vista is an inferior OS, It might be inferior, but it is still usable. Its just not as efficent on most things performance wise.
Funny thing is, to the people who hate on XP, actually even Windows 7 is inferior to XP on most benchmarks such as memory utilization and Load bias. Win 7s big thing that it beat XP on was network utilization. So if you want to get real technical XP is still the technically superior choice. But XPs day is over, because even in its best case situation it is now obsolete due to restrictions such as Direct X. Even if XP beats 7 on benchmarks its a "just barely" situation that win 7 more than makes up for with its overall stability, improved network uptake and its proliferation of 64bit OS.
XP was awesome (especially XP: Black which didnt have all the ungodly bloat. Seriously there is nothing faster than XP when the only thing it loads is 11 processes.) But its time has come and gone. 7 its its true successor. Vista was in essence the beta test for 7. Get used to 7 because in all likelyhood youll need to hold onto it for a few years while they try to pass the beta that will be 8 on people until 9 becomes the stable release.
EDIT: OT: I REALLY need to quit posting when I am half awake and prone to droning on in a post that will likely result in me being quoted 6 ways from sunday on how im wrong.
Windows 95 Was the solid Os
Win 98 was the new beta OS
They then released the stable Win 98 Second edition
Then they experimented again Win ME which was experimental and new beta, which ended up buggy and bad.
They refined the innovations from ME and then made the more stable XP.
Vista was the buggy beta for the new gen OS
Win 7 was the stable release that refined all the bugginess out of the beta that was Vista.
So theres a couple things I dont get. MS has kept with this trend for 15 years now (possibly longer, who knows, who actually used windows before 95?
) A: Why does Microsoft release unstable experimental OSs instead of taking the time to hammer out the bugs in them?
B: Why does Microsoft expect the general public to basically pay money to do free beta testing for them?
C: Staying on this consistent track history, why havent more people picked up on this pattern and learned to avoid their unstable beta releases?
As for Vista.. honestly. its an OK OS ... NOW. But at launch and pre SP2.. it was an abysmal failure. But now.. for the most part it is an adequate OS that has been benchmarked inferior to XP. So its basically proven Vista is an inferior OS, It might be inferior, but it is still usable. Its just not as efficent on most things performance wise.
Funny thing is, to the people who hate on XP, actually even Windows 7 is inferior to XP on most benchmarks such as memory utilization and Load bias. Win 7s big thing that it beat XP on was network utilization. So if you want to get real technical XP is still the technically superior choice. But XPs day is over, because even in its best case situation it is now obsolete due to restrictions such as Direct X. Even if XP beats 7 on benchmarks its a "just barely" situation that win 7 more than makes up for with its overall stability, improved network uptake and its proliferation of 64bit OS.
XP was awesome (especially XP: Black which didnt have all the ungodly bloat. Seriously there is nothing faster than XP when the only thing it loads is 11 processes.) But its time has come and gone. 7 its its true successor. Vista was in essence the beta test for 7. Get used to 7 because in all likelyhood youll need to hold onto it for a few years while they try to pass the beta that will be 8 on people until 9 becomes the stable release.
EDIT: OT: I REALLY need to quit posting when I am half awake and prone to droning on in a post that will likely result in me being quoted 6 ways from sunday on how im wrong.
Ultimately, Windows 7 64-bit has already overtaken Vista 32-bit and is damn close to overtaking XP 32-bit on the Steam Hardware Survey. It's increasingly clear to see that 7 is the new XP.
(If you didn't perform a clean install while you installed 7, then don't come crying to me if it doesn't work).
(If you didn't perform a clean install while you installed 7, then don't come crying to me if it doesn't work).
Fancy gimmick = Fancy - TrueHuntrRose said:
Security = more important - True
Stupid sod raining on my parade = A Dead man - True
Nah jokes, but seriously, is there any harm in appreciating a new and fancy gimmick? No. There's a reason we all enjoyed the Nintendo Wii for at least the first hour. Plus I don't recall posting that a fancy gimmick is more important than security. Thanks for pointing it out though!
No matter how much publicity MS put out for vista I wasnt guna be conned. Im still running XP SP3. Everyone Ive even known to go vista regretted it.
Looking at going over to windows 7 though after Ive managed to transfer the majority of my games/music/documents over to be new actual decent size harddrive. I wana get onto a 64bit system. My computer in its current state is wasted on XP 32
Looking at going over to windows 7 though after Ive managed to transfer the majority of my games/music/documents over to be new actual decent size harddrive. I wana get onto a 64bit system. My computer in its current state is wasted on XP 32
More me overreacting possibly. Just sick and tired of every single idiot who thinks he knows things pointing at the shiny gimmick and saying that is why it is better. It's like saying a sword is better than a gun because it looks cooler. (even if this gimmick thingie went the right way =P )MercurySteam said:
Oh, and for the record, I have never enjoyed the wii =P
I hate useless gimmicks as much as the next guy, but conveniently finding a use for them is a good enough reason for me to use them once in awhile.HuntrRose said:
And yeah, the Wii is pretty useless.
Same thing here. I like playing old games on it! Have a laptop with Vista though. I hate Vista with a passion.Skorpyo said:
Ehh, I didn't really have any problems with Vista or 7. I like 7's interface a lot better, though.