I happened to have all three OS on separate desktops/laptop, WinXP SP3, Vista Home, and Win7 Ultimate.
Yes. that's nice. I have a number of Operating Systems on different systems ranging from Windows 3.1 to Slackware 13. I didn't mention that because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.
None of the computers have had a crash or freeze except for Vista (due to compatiblity issues).
Ahh, what a extensive empirical testing! "I oosed a few operating systems on diffrt hardware and they behaved diffret must hav bin dee operation systeem"
(misspellings added for comedic effect)But don't believe me
had no intention of doing so.
go read some reviews comparing the three, go look at the benchmarks.
*censored*?
Oh, yes, my computer running Vista now has an consecutive uptime of ~1050 hours, but no, that means absolutely nothing! Vista is unstable and crappy because these review sites say so, even if my experience tells me otherwise.
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
WinXP is clearly faster than the three, specially for gaming.
benchmarking tools are completely trivial and meaningless. Especially in this case. You'll note that the program is running on Windows XP 32-bit.
Notable? yes.
This means that the 64-bit windows versions are running the 32-bit benchmarking tool. obviously the writer is unaware that
On 64-bit windows, all 32-bit programs run in a penalty box which virtualizes everything again. so the 64-bit windows benchmarks are
WRONG, and I suspect the author is fully aware of this, actually. Now, the benchmarks are accurate for 32-bit games- at least partially- but most games nowadays also have 64-bit versions, and I know for a fact that my copy of crysis runs a lot faster with the 64-bit executable then the 32-bit executable. I also don't see how a analysis omitting an entire architecture point can still be regarded as any sort of evidence to anything. The author is just a crafty git who knows his readership (people such as yourself) are simply unaware of these things. The reason is simple- it's a lot easier to criticize something old that people are familiar with then something new that they are not.
"but Win7 is basically a patched version of Vista, they have taken feedback from Vista and removed what people hated so much about it".... "but still major issues".
And yet you still provide no actual citations of these things that "people hated" and the "major issues" that are still present that were fixed in Vista.
I didn't compare the older OS because not many people would go for those options as they are discontinued and not supported.
Windows XP isn't supported either. Which should come as no surprise. it was released 9 years ago. And you know what people were saying 9 years ago?
EXACTLY... and I'm not even exaggerating- replace the technology names, and the OS names in a 10 year old XP review and you've got a Vista review and vice versa.
Microsoft is actually trying to discontinue XP in the future
Yeah, it's called a "product lifecycle" you might want to look it up sometime. And XP is far from the only product to get a extension on it's supported lifespan, so did windows 98SE. And you know what? "In the future" they will discontinue Windows Vista and Windows 7! hardly reasons not to use them
now.
and have people on Vista upgrade to Win7...
yeah! and you know what happened when they released windows 3.1, even though it was nearly the same as 3.0 in many ways?
They said people should upgrade! It's almost like- oh, I dunno- they're a company that wants you to buy their product! Dear gawd! It's a revelation!
If you are really really sick of hearing Vista is utter crap, you either don't care about performance or haven't tried Win7 (which is a cleaner version of their mess up)!
perhaps you should read my post, namely the area where I note SPECIFICALLY my experience with windows 7:
Anyway, I have Windows 7 on my laptop and Vista on my desktop and honestly there is nothing notable about windows 7. most of the enhancements are little "hey, neat" things, like dragging windows to the top of the screen maximizes them, and dragging to the side tiles, etc. I guess it really depends how much you'd have to pay for it.
Another interesting "argument" that comes up is that "Windows 7 is totally different" and they base that claim Solely on the changed UI of the included applets.
I've noted this before, but calc.exe was
completely rewritten for windows 2000- the calculation engine was completely revamped. Nobody cared. The program ran
better but it didn't
look better, so nobody gave a *censored*. Basically this is a case of people who haven't got a clue what they are talking about once again making vast hand-wavy generalizations based on what they see rather then actually researching the history of the applets themselves. You see- this is important, but
when you don't change the insides, nobody notices.
And even when you follow that tenet, you notice discrepancies. For one thing- why was nobody tripping over themselves with happiness when
Vista allowed command prompt windows to be themed, when XP did not? Why did nobody care?
Also, the biggest things people complain about are UI changes- the office ribbon, for example. or Aero- or Luna before that. They don't complain because it's inferior, they complain because it's
different, any reasons they give are contrived. They can easily say "it reduces performance" but when your PC is adequate, neither Luna nor Aero have much of a performance impact at all. it's completely fabricated fodder based entirely on their own biassed perceptions. If somebody uses an OS they hate, they are going to notice things they
dislike a *censored* of a lot easier then things that they do like, and whenever they find something they do like they will always rationalize it away somehow.
Anyway- I like windows 7, it's good. But it is by no means this "magical panacea" that fixed windows Vista's "bugs".
Which brings up, yet again, this issue of people simply saying "X is full of bugs". If I say your face is made of cheese, or that the world is square, does t hat make it true? No, I'd need a sampling of your nose Gouda or an analysis of vertices to prove it. This is called "evidence" and is presented when trying to "make a point" making meaningless generalizations merely reinforces the fact that you really don't know what your talking about and all your doing is regurgitating stuff you read elsewhere. Additionally, even if said bugs exist, we are of course forgetting that Windows XP, even after three service packs, still has bugs as well. Why don't these count? is XP somehow exempt from an attempt at contempt? XP has a heck of a lot more showstoppers then Windows Vista.
Oh hey, let's run some queries with ol' google!
site:support.microsoft.com "BUG:" + "Windows XP"
hits:
2,600
site:support.microsoft.com "BUG:" + "Windows Vista"
647
What's this? less then HALF the KB articles?
Windows 7 gives 196 for a similar query.
Additionally, most of these bugs are fixed. but XP was never this bugless wonder that people insist on making it out to be.
