Something I didn't mention; because Windows Vista has the two textures, it is slightly slower managing them- drawing to one needs to be reflected in the others, so while GDI and GDI plus draw to the system bitmap, Vista still has to get it to Video memory at some point. (I actually don't know if it ever get's "copied back" from video memory... but it's still a copy that Win7 doesn't have to do. Also, I believe that this allowed them to add more parallelism to the Window manager, because there was less contention for System memory; an Excellent improvement, but nothing to particularly write home about (at least not in my case, the only systems I think would really see a benefit would be those with probably 2GB of memory, and personally I would (again) not run Vista or 7 on them unless they were going to be upped to at least 4GB in the future; better to use XP or Linux.
I think that "duplicate" memory usage goes away if you don't use Aero, though, since then it switches to the standard Lua themer. But then that takes away al the fun of using Vista/7 (heh).
This is a computer help forum. 'help' being the operative word. You have not done much accept argue. Then you start to agree once BC_P totally outclassed you. So , can you see how it looks......helping people - positive...........argueing about your views on Operating Systems - negative. Whether right or wrong, thats my opinion.
I also disagree about this. You are lumping the action of argument wholly as a negative; a more apt association would be a flame war, but this certainly is not, although people saying "HAHA YOU QUOTED WRONG" clearly are not arguing against the points of the argument and are just being dicks. I noticed that too, but saying anything about it would be like arguing that somebody's point is invalid because they misspelled a word; seems the more recent posts are trying to do the very same thing Allan requested not be done; try to instigate a flamewar. I doubt it would have succeeded but it's interesting to note that when that same person starts talking about positive versus negative as if posts are electrons or something. Saying the argument itself is negative is to ignore it; for example, what have we learned today?
1. Can people think Vista is better then windows 7
Yes- of course they can. Just as people can feel that win98 is the best release of windows ever. Even so older versions of windows cannot be judged side by side; the appropriate way is not "This version is better then this version" but rather "This version will be better
running on this type of hardware then this version" So an old 386 computer is at best going to get windows 95 but windows 3.1 would run a lot better and on the whole might have a better experience.
The reason that Win7 is regarded so much better- aside from Better marketing, and an Open Beta is that very thing; for each succeeding version of windows, the system requirements go up. Windows 95 could run on a 386; windows XP needs a Pentium 2 or equivalent or better. etc. With win7 the requirements actually went
down, but, to be fair, judging an OS based on the quoted requirements is usually pretty silly; I mean, has anybody actually run windows 95 on a 386? It's not fun. In that case, DOS and Windows 3.1 provide a better User Experience then windows 95, despite (overall) it's many improvements.
It's difficult to compare two Operating Systems except on the same hardware, and devious "reviewers" could for example choose hardware it knows specifically to have problems with one or the other; for example, comparing NT4 and 2000, a reviewer could choose a specific SCSI card that simply doesn't work with W2K and declare that windows 2000 is "incompatible" and not worth the upgrade; so it's important to look at it from any number of perspectives and see that even relatively ancient Operating Systems like Windows 95 could have their place on machines from that era. Some might argue that the relics of the past such as those old PCs should be trashed, but why? If they can do the job they are designed for, there is no reason to replace them. This is why many Point-Of-Sale Systems still use Proprietary software/hardware or even DOS based systems.
Come to think of it, I've seen it quite a lot; people having their arguments essentially dismissed because they have very few posts. If they raise a valid point(s) it doesn't matter how many posts they have, just as having 10,000 or more posts doesn't make somebody infallible. It's a number.