Poll: Wait for Windows 7 or buy XP for new computer?

[Avaholic03]

I've been using Windows 7 (Release Candidate) for a couple weeks now, and not a single problem to report. It certainly seems faster than Vista while using fewer system resources. So basically it's just an optimized version of Vista, with better driver support and a few tweaks. One of the tweaks: the new combined quick launch and taskbar is quite useful. And the ability to cycle desktop pictures is nice too. I hear they're going to release Windows 7 before Xmas, so either wait for the finished product, or try the Windows 7 RC to see if you like it.

 

[DemonI81]

Click to see what I said

Obviously you don't use many open source programs. MS requires digital signing of all drivers/programs that run on the 64 bit version of Vista. This means people that make high quality, free programs, for people to use would have to pay MS ~$500 a year to "sign" their programs and make them work on Vista 64. The 32 bit version doesn't have this BS in it at least, but it's still garbage.

Well, I'm not sure to which open-source applications you are refering. Perhaps you should explain your definition of "open-source". It sounds like you're talking about "freeware", a term that my not be used anymore, but might be synonymous with your definition of open-source. I always thought "open-source" referred to a program that left it source code unlocked or "open" to be manipulated as the user saw fit for modding and such, but those aren't necessarily free, nor would all freeware be open-soruce. Anyway, I have installed freeware applications just fine, and I know that the authors couldn't afford to pay Microsoft any money. I also have used software described as open-source. I think even I did see "not digitally signed" but it allowed me to bypass.

If you were able to bypass the digitally signed stuff you're not using 64bit. Plain and simple. OR they changed it since the last time I used it which was 2 months ago.
Yes, I mean freeware, sorry, I was typing in a rush, I had to go to my C++ final.

Click to see what I said

Obviously you don't use many open source programs. MS requires digital signing of all drivers/programs that run on the 64 bit version of Vista. This means people that make high quality, free programs, for people to use would have to pay MS ~$500 a year to "sign" their programs and make them work on Vista 64. The 32 bit version doesn't have this BS in it at least, but it's still garbage.

Well, I'm not sure to which open-source applications you are refering. Perhaps you should explain your definition of "open-source". It sounds like you're talking about "freeware", a term that my not be used anymore, but might be synonymous with your definition of open-source. I always thought "open-source" referred to a program that left it source code unlocked or "open" to be manipulated as the user saw fit for modding and such, but those aren't necessarily free, nor would all freeware be open-soruce. Anyway, I have installed freeware applications just fine, and I know that the authors couldn't afford to pay Microsoft any money. I also have used software described as open-source. I think even I did see "not digitally signed" but it allowed me to bypass.

=still my point is that what make a good OS for you, might not be the same as what's make a good OS to somebody else. And general opinion in the VARs/LARs and IHV/ISV channels is that windows 7 is pretty strong. Now if you dont like it, it doesnt make it a weak OS

Beside, windows vista home premium (which is good for 80% of people, unless you really want to do remote desktop or use bitlocker) is something like 130$ now. and i think that windows 7 on launch for home premium will probably be sold 200$ something. So i dont really see where you take your 400$ here...

I guess I'm looking at what I'd want, which is the Ultimate version. I have a hard time understanding people that use the bare minimum. Just like I have a hard time understanding why people like Vista or Windows 7. The only answer I can come up with is the "eye candy". I know that's the only thing about either of them that I thought they got right, and eye candy is pointless.

To the Linux guy: I've been using Ubuntu more and more, if all the programs I use for video/audio encoding, programming, etc... worked on Linux so I didn't have to learn all new programs, it would be my primary OS hands down.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Said something

...For most people as long as you computer play your music files fine, play your games with a good FPS, recognize your hardware when you plug it and dont crash all the time, then you have a good OS.

Oh guess what, windows 7 and vista post sp1 do all that...

Yes they do, but it's ignorance to think that, that's what makes a good OS.

still my point is that what make a good OS for you, might not be the same as what's make a good OS to somebody else. And general opinion in the VARs/LARs and IHV/ISV channels is that windows 7 is pretty strong. Now if you dont like it, it doesnt make it a weak OS

Beside, windows vista home premium (which is good for 80% of people, unless you really want to do remote desktop or use bitlocker) is something like 130$ now. and i think that windows 7 on launch for home premium will probably be sold 200$ something. So i dont really see where you take your 400$ here...

Agreed. A good OS is an OS that does what you want. If Vista or 7 don't do what you want, don't use them. Maybe Vista and 7 do what the OP wants, we are just letting him know what it can be used for. Linux, XP, MacOS, etc. don't do exactly what I want to do. Vista does, so Vista is good for me. Your input is useful as far as what you consider its limitations, because the OP may want to do what you want to do, but maybe he doesn't and Vista or 7 will work fine for him. It isn't enough to say that it is "bad" just because it doesn't do what you want to do.

Also agreed on invalidity of pricing.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Click to see what I said

Said something

...I have installed freeware applications just fine, and I know that the authors couldn't afford to pay Microsoft any money. I also have used software described as open-source. I think even I did see "not digitally signed" but it allowed me to bypass.

If you were able to bypass the digitally signed stuff you're not using 64bit. Plain and simple. OR they changed it since the last time I used it which was 2 months ago.
Yes, I mean freeware, sorry, I was typing in a rush, I had to go to my C++ final.

I am certain that I am using 64-bit. I bought it specifically so I could install 4+GB of RAM, and have the OS recognize all of it.

As far as wether or not what I have installed is digitally signed or not, I am still certain that some software was written by people who couldn't afford to get it digitally signed. I am fairly certain that I have seen "not digitally signed" and bypassed it successfully, but I could be wrong. I only know that everything that I have tried to install, has been successful.

No worries on typo, I was just concerned that my vocabulary was out-of-date.

 

[Low Key]

I have used Windows all of my life, from 3.1 all the way up to 7 Beta, and in my experience you should stick with the one that is the most stable. That means XP. There is nothing wrong if you want to use 7, I am currently typing this on it right now, but if you are looking for reliability, go with something that is already proven.

Microshaft has a track record of releasing half finished products. I think they are trying to make amends by offering 7 RC for free, but that just shows you the flaws.

Actually, if you want to give it a shot, you should download virtualbox from Sun Microsystems. That way, you can test out 7 before you decided to purchase anything. It's like running a totally different computer on your computer, but you have to have a dual core.

 

[buggy65]

I understand what you all are saying and thank you for the input (especially you Demonl81). But the reason I didn't put Vista on the list is not ignorace. I do not like all of the extra fluffy features (Gadget bar, prompts, pre-installed shit) that windows put in Vista. Also, what's with the stupid buttons up top instead of a red close "X".
I know this is sorta knit-picking, but Vista feels too weighed down by artsy fartsy casual consumer "eye-candy" to be my chosen OS.
As for Linux, I've never written a code in my life. I can do basic hardware and software matinence, but that's about it.

 

[Low Key]

I understand what you all are saying and thank you for the input (especially you Demonl81). But the reason I didn't put Vista on the list is not ignorace. I do not like all of the extra fluffy features (Gadget bar, prompts, pre-installed shit) that windows put in Vista. Also, what's with the stupid buttons up top instead of a red close "X".
I know this is sorta knit-picking, but Vista feels too weighed down by artsy fartsy casual consumer "eye-candy" to be my chosen OS.
As for Linux, I've never written a code in my life. I can do basic hardware and software matinence, but that's about it.

Linux isn't all code. You can run it exactly like Windows with the graphical interface if you want to. The command line is basically used for servers and uber security. Coincidentally, I just got done taking my Linux admin final. Yay!

 

[arf19]

i would go with XP cause windows sort of screwed up Vista on release but usually after service pack 1 they become pretty stable as i havent blue screened my vista in ages but it still is a wee bit slow on my laptop but thats cause my laptop sucks
havent really heard much good about windows 7 but i guess it is still early days

 

[Low Key]

Yeah, Win7 is pretty glitchy but it's beta for a reason. The RC should be much more stable. We'll see though. The most stable OS Microsoft has ever released was WinNT/2000.

 

[RapidCrash]

Given Microsoft's recent track record with new operating systems, it's probably best to stick with XP.

If you've looked at their OS trend, Windows 7 will win over XP. Just look:

Win 95 - Was crap, riddled with bugs, overall not a great OS.
Win 98 - Prodigy of windows 95, had everything and BETTER.

Windows NT/2000 - Crap, riddled with bugs, better design over 98, but was overall not worth it.
Windows XP - Improved NT core, was everything 2000 was and better. Prodigy of its time.

Windows Vista - Crap, riddled with bugs. New design promises a better core and work flow, yet bugs and flaws makes it a bad system compared to XP's stable design.
Windows 7 - Improves over Vista's core. Takes everything about vista, and makes it much better than before, overall a much better system.

 

[buggy65]

You convienlenty left out Windows ME...

 

[esperandote]

Windows 7 is just Vista 2.0, I don't care what anyone says. It's just as annoying and not user friendly as far as I'm concerned. Get XP, for more stable and far easier to use.

EDIT: Guess I should've read ALL of the comments before posting. Seems this thread is full of people that know nothing about code or operating systems other than how to play their music.
To the OP, take what you read in here with a very large grain of salt. Check out some tech sites with people who KNOW what they're talking about and aren't all clueless and all about the "eye candy" that the those garbage OS's are (Vista, 7).

So what you're saying is tha XP is more stable than Vista? <.< and about it being easier to use than Vista is just matter of being used to it. I used to like XP more, i prefer using vista now. Besides, XP is about to lose it's support so any vulnerability from now on is going to stay unpatched and well known.

Computer Systems Engineer
ASP.NET and VB.NET Developer.

You convienlenty left out Windows ME...

also windows 2003 and 2008

 

[Low Key]

You convienlenty left out Windows ME...

also windows 2003 and 2008

The kernel for those are taken from XP and Vista, respectively, though. And quite a bit of overkill for the average user since they are server OS's.

 

[theklng]

right question, wrong forum. ask over at notebookreview's forums. them nerds be experts.

 

[akmarksman]

Having built 7 computers now..and running both XP Home,XP Pro,Vista Home and Vista X64 Premium..
I would say just use XP while you are comfortable with it. Obviously you don't like Vista so I won't recommend it.

I've been using X64 Premium for 5 months without any trouble.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

XP. Windows 7 is another memory-whore.

Uh, no. That's a feature. It just keeps programs you use often in RAM, like Vista, and frees it up when needed - like when you're using a memory intensive program. Unused memory is wasted memory.

 

[jamesworkshop]

my view is to wait for win7 first service pack update i'll test it with a spare hardrive and if that works ghost it to my RAID array

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I've never understood the bad reputation that Vista has. I've been running the 64-bit Ultimate version since launch, first on an HP tablet PC, then my custom built tower, now my XPS laptop.

Obviously you don't use many open source programs. MS requires digital signing of all drivers/programs that run on the 64 bit version of Vista. This means people that make high quality, free programs, for people to use would have to pay MS ~$500 a year to "sign" their programs and make them work on Vista 64. The 32 bit version doesn't have this BS in it at least, but it's still garbage.

Uh, no. I'm using 64-bit Vista and I play a lot of indie freeware games (I need my roguelikes). I also run programs like OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, Pidgin, GIMP and various other programs that are open source. Only drivers that run at kernel level need to be signed (think graphics card drivers - things that should have manufacturer support). I use open source software extensively, and I haven't run into any significant compatability issues. I even have Tomboy Notes running in GTK#!

If you're going to bash Windows, you could at least know what you're talking about.

Vista's not liked mostly because Vista's not liked.

 

[Syntax Error]

Given Microsoft's recent track record with new operating systems, it's probably best to stick with XP.

If you've looked at their OS trend, Windows 7 will win over XP. Just look:

Win 95 - Was crap, riddled with bugs, overall not a great OS.
Win 98 - Prodigy of windows 95, had everything and BETTER.

Windows NT/2000 - Crap, riddled with bugs, better design over 98, but was overall not worth it.
Windows XP - Improved NT core, was everything 2000 was and better. Prodigy of its time.

Windows Vista - Crap, riddled with bugs. New design promises a better core and work flow, yet bugs and flaws makes it a bad system compared to XP's stable design.
Windows 7 - Improves over Vista's core. Takes everything about vista, and makes it much better than before, overall a much better system.

Is there a reason Mistake Edition isn't mentioned there?

 

[CAPPINJACK]

I've never understood the bad reputation that Vista has. I've been running the 64-bit Ultimate version since launch, first on an HP tablet PC, then my custom built tower, now my XPS laptop.

Obviously you don't use many open source programs. MS requires digital signing of all drivers/programs that run on the 64 bit version of Vista. This means people that make high quality, free programs, for people to use would have to pay MS ~$500 a year to "sign" their programs and make them work on Vista 64. The 32 bit version doesn't have this BS in it at least, but it's still garbage.

Uh, no. I'm using 64-bit Vista and I play a lot of indie freeware games (I need my roguelikes). I also run programs like OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, Pidgin, GIMP and various other programs that are open source. Only drivers that run at kernel level need to be signed (think graphics card drivers - things that should have manufacturer support). I use open source software extensively, and I haven't run into any significant compatability issues. I even have Tomboy Notes running in GTK#!

If you're going to bash Windows, you could at least know what you're talking about.

Vista's not liked mostly because Vista's not liked.

What did you expect from a guy who says shit like this:

sorry, I was typing in a rush, I had to go to my C++ final.

Clearly he's a sophisitimacated C++ programmer. How can we dispute him?