DO NOT even think about upgrading to Windows 7. Not even Vista. Stick to Windows XP if that's what you got now. Trust me.
Is Windows 7 worth the wait?
- Thread starter acj540
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow...
Vista had a bad launch due to driver and software incompatabilities, necessary to rebuild aging archetecture of the OS. Within a few months, and especially by SP1, Vista certainly surpassed XP. Maybe not in brute speed, but in usability, due to a number of interface improvements.
As for being a memory hog, well, yes, it used more memory than XP. Then again, when XP came out, it was seen as a huge memory hog, and I certainly didn't have more than 512MB of RAM at the time (I'm not sure I even had that much). What Vista does is take advantage of systems with a lot of memory, loading frequently used applications before they are launched to speed up performance. Why even have a system with 2+GB of RAM if you just want it to sit there? Oh, and for whoever suggested XP-64, just...no. XP-64 came out too early, and has almost no support for applications and drivers. Vista 64, on the other hand, is very well supported.
As far as other things go, I recently saw a chart (Can't remember where, maybe Maximum PC) that represented OS security. Over 30% of XP installs had some sort of malware on them when tested, while Vista was around 5%, and with SP1 dropped to 3%.
Now that that's out of the way, on to Windows 7. I'll admit, I haven't booted into Vista in a month or so, but that's because 7 is a big step up. Anything that works in Vista will work in 7, because it's based on the same NT kernal (Vista was 6.0, 7 is actually 6.1), and it's faster than either Vista or XP at pretty much everything. There are some beta-esque bugs in the 7000 build, but MS already said they've tracked down and fixed over 2000 bugs due to the open beta.
I'm running 7 on my Gaming/general purpose PC, my small SSD based laptop (With an old Core Duo (not c2d) and 2GB ram), and my touchscreen kitchen PC (Yes, kitchen PC. Basically a netbook in a case. Atom, 2GB RAM, slow hard drive), and it is excellent on all of them, even giving me smooth eye candy on the netbook spec PC.
You can add me to the list of "Will buy 7 the second it's made available" people. It's going to be an expensive day, though upgrading those 3 and my Media Center...
Vista had a bad launch due to driver and software incompatabilities, necessary to rebuild aging archetecture of the OS. Within a few months, and especially by SP1, Vista certainly surpassed XP. Maybe not in brute speed, but in usability, due to a number of interface improvements.
As for being a memory hog, well, yes, it used more memory than XP. Then again, when XP came out, it was seen as a huge memory hog, and I certainly didn't have more than 512MB of RAM at the time (I'm not sure I even had that much). What Vista does is take advantage of systems with a lot of memory, loading frequently used applications before they are launched to speed up performance. Why even have a system with 2+GB of RAM if you just want it to sit there? Oh, and for whoever suggested XP-64, just...no. XP-64 came out too early, and has almost no support for applications and drivers. Vista 64, on the other hand, is very well supported.
As far as other things go, I recently saw a chart (Can't remember where, maybe Maximum PC) that represented OS security. Over 30% of XP installs had some sort of malware on them when tested, while Vista was around 5%, and with SP1 dropped to 3%.
Now that that's out of the way, on to Windows 7. I'll admit, I haven't booted into Vista in a month or so, but that's because 7 is a big step up. Anything that works in Vista will work in 7, because it's based on the same NT kernal (Vista was 6.0, 7 is actually 6.1), and it's faster than either Vista or XP at pretty much everything. There are some beta-esque bugs in the 7000 build, but MS already said they've tracked down and fixed over 2000 bugs due to the open beta.
I'm running 7 on my Gaming/general purpose PC, my small SSD based laptop (With an old Core Duo (not c2d) and 2GB ram), and my touchscreen kitchen PC (Yes, kitchen PC. Basically a netbook in a case. Atom, 2GB RAM, slow hard drive), and it is excellent on all of them, even giving me smooth eye candy on the netbook spec PC.
You can add me to the list of "Will buy 7 the second it's made available" people. It's going to be an expensive day, though upgrading those 3 and my Media Center...
word from the beta is that it is everything that vista should have been. running smoother, using less system resources, less redundant security problems etc. they've been much more open about windows 7 than they have with vista. that alone makes me think that 7 will be a good thing happening.Fraser.J.A said:
ok how about this for bad thingsZeeky_Santos said:
security holes out the wazoo
an api that makes options such as "do no install anything without asking" a suggestion
poor memory usage
non-standards compliance, using a different system and calling it a standard is not standards compliance
dll hell, there is no one at microsoft who can tell you what all the dlls in windows\system32 do and there's no way to find out either
a need for more cpu and more ram each and every time they upgrade the os
there's tons of reasons not to use windows. if i could run linux for everything i would as it's way more secure and runs a lot better
XP is probably the best OS Microsoft has released, but for the long-term you'll have to upgrade from XP eventually.Cid SilverWing said:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/04/windows-xp-mainstream-support-retired-but-no-need-to-worry.ars
This thread has now become, oh surprise!, a 4 side battle batween:
1: windows xp users
2: macs
3: linux
4: windows 7
Been using w7 x64 for about 2 weeks now, and I haven't had any major problems. The only one I've found is about the screen diming (light dims after a while of not using it), that basically doesn't turn back on to full power. Fixed it by disabling screen dimming (oh dear, oh dear!)
Before that I had a xp32 build that was 2 year-old. I had to reinstall, so why not upgrade?
I'm not saying xp is bad. XP was good for the year 2000. Computers got better, with more ram (currently running on 4gb, upgraded recently from 1gb in the laptop), and more processor power. Of course, if you compare what you need to run xp and what you need to run w7 (not saying windows vista), yes, there is an increase, but the average computer is going to be better than the average computer from when xp came out.
1: windows xp users
2: macs
3: linux
4: windows 7
Been using w7 x64 for about 2 weeks now, and I haven't had any major problems. The only one I've found is about the screen diming (light dims after a while of not using it), that basically doesn't turn back on to full power. Fixed it by disabling screen dimming (oh dear, oh dear!)
Before that I had a xp32 build that was 2 year-old. I had to reinstall, so why not upgrade?
I'm not saying xp is bad. XP was good for the year 2000. Computers got better, with more ram (currently running on 4gb, upgraded recently from 1gb in the laptop), and more processor power. Of course, if you compare what you need to run xp and what you need to run w7 (not saying windows vista), yes, there is an increase, but the average computer is going to be better than the average computer from when xp came out.
... I've never ever had a problem with Vista that everyone else is having. I feel out of the loop.Khell_Sennet said:
![[Gavo]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/33/33764.jpg?1620201950){kind=avatar}
Windows 7 is gonna be less resource intensive than Vista. Build a computer with Vista compatibility in mind, and it will work fine in Windows 7 (And run faster).
With the recession biting and all tho, desktop's are going to have a slow year so it's as good a time as any to buy parts. All the big upgrades this year seem to be aimed at netbooks and mobile computing.
[edit: I actually like Vista, they commited a cardinal sin with the pc requirements, but it's a damn pretty looking OS]
With the recession biting and all tho, desktop's are going to have a slow year so it's as good a time as any to buy parts. All the big upgrades this year seem to be aimed at netbooks and mobile computing.
[edit: I actually like Vista, they commited a cardinal sin with the pc requirements, but it's a damn pretty looking OS]
How amusing. Oh dumbasses and their short memories. Yes, that'd be you genius. You're probably too stupid or too young (or likely a combination of both) to remember when XP came out and Win 2000 was the "Bestest OS Microsoft released EVAR!" (and it was). XP would blue screen so often that my monitor had a blue tint for months. XP didn't start to really come into its own until after SP1 was released. Guess what? A lot of problems with Vista were remedied after SP1. AMAZING I KNOW!!!SoonerMatt said:
Seriously, idiots like you are a blight. You can't even back up your accusations with hard facts. You just spew the typical dogma that's expected from the typical anti-Microsoft twat. I'm willing to bet you've never used anything beyond Windows XP and even then you've probably only went to a web site or two.Khell_Sennet said:
Trust you? You don't even give any reasons why we should stick to XP. You're obviously not qualified to give out advice my friend.Cid SilverWing said:
Is it? Really? Or do you really understand what's going on under the hood? Remember, unused resources are wasted resources. Keep in mind that Vista caches a lot of your applications for faster start up (called SuperFetch, google it smart guy). And let's face it, from 95 to 98 to Win 2k (let's forget Millenium) to XP and now to Vista memory usage as increased by an order of magnitude. This is a pretty normal state of affairs. I've found that with newer versions of Linux the same is true. You want features, you want this, you want that but you're not willing to pay for it.ravensheart18 said:
Everything I own works perfectly. Every piece of software I use runs beautifully. And I've seen many other people state the same thing. Hell I've even gotten software running that refused to run under XP. Yeah, compatibility issues blah blah blah. Besides most stuff is updated nowadays to handle Vista if there are compatibility issues. And let me tell you when it comes to stability I haven't seen a version of Windows that's been so solid. I had blue screens sure... but then a busted video card will do that to you. Replaced the card and all has been good since.ravensheart18 said:
This I might have to concede from a support view simply because of the retraining required to handle it.ravensheart18 said:
That's bullshit and you know it.ravensheart18 said:
My experience says otherwise. I've benchmarked both my beefier XP machine at work and my wimpy laptop with Vista and my laptop slaughters it on many accounts.ravensheart18 said:
My guess is that you're full of shit. My systems are set up to design software and Vista has been excellent for that. Even a few issues I used to encounter under XP while designing have just disappeared. I'm a very demanding user (especially since I do game development work) and my experience with XP is that there's little difference (and often these differences are in Vista's favor) when it comes to "running better".ravensheart18 said:
