All you want is facts proof, which I have lots of benchmarks and performance tests of all three, just do a friggen google search if you want proof. But you said they are all useless? hah, how else do you guys compare?
ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?
Smart people compare by USING the product, not by accepting reviews, the one which you've linked so far I've already disproved as technically inaccurate, as some sort of holy guidebook.
I like Vista because it is pretty and treats the user as a complete noob is basically the only thing you can say.
Yeah, that makes sense. Nobody said that, I said a lot else, but nope, that's all I can say.
Additionally, All versions of windows are customizable. For example, showing hidden files and folders are not something new users would like. Nor would they enjoy being called "noobs" just because they don't play Call of duty or whatever for 8 hours a day.
You guys give no proof it's any better.
I already did. several times. I use both windows Vista and Windows 7 and the differences are largely asthetic. That's proof from experience not meaningless quotes from biased and technologically false reviews.
Yet you bark at me! saying it's meaningless gibberish, lol! I laugh at you all dead set in your ways!
I laugh at your lack of reading comprehension. But then I feel bad for mocking the less fortunate.
You say WinXP has more errors and try to prove with a little google search.
That was several posts ago. If you look closely, you'll notice that even I refute that statement. the intention was not met by those particular morsels.
More users use WinXP
This is pure speculation. And it's completely untrue. Make the "use" into "used" though would make it true.
it's been around longer, it has more services pack fixing the past issues. Of course there would be more reports.
Yes. That's what me and Ventas already said. You fail, once again, at reading.
Companys have even spent an extra $60 to downgrade their new computer purchases from Vista to XP. People willing to spend money on a downgrade,
OK, this is ANOTHER technically fallacious. First off, these are
companies not individuals. The
The most important thing to them is how much the upgrade costs as opposed to what it brings the cost of an upgrade from one version of windows to another, regardless of version, represents a huge investment of time and money as the companies IT staff needs to be retrained for the new OS, internal applications probably need to be rewritten to run on the new Operating System, and sometimes the entire architecture needs to be rebuilt. There are still plenty of companies running with Windows NT 4 Server, that doesn't mean that Windows NT4 is better then Windows 2000 or XP, it simply means that the cost of upgrading from Windows NT to a later version is not worth the cost- and the NT 4 version <works>. The same thing is true today, as with any version, there is a difference in that Windows XP was active for the longest period of time of any windows Version. Therefore, far more companies have established their IT infrastructure on the XP OS. Additionally, from a business perspective, Windows Vista doesn't offer anything productive, and it costs the company loads of cash to retrain their staff on a new OS. It's rather foolish to say that one OS is worse then another based simply on the fact that a company is trying to save money as any sane company would do.
Windows 7 uses less RAM and disk space than Vista.
Disk space: perhaps. but the 5 GB difference between by desktop (Vista) and Laptop (7) is hardly notable compared to the total size of the drives. Additionally, you continue to blather on about how windows 7 uses less RAM. it doesn't. so shut up about it unless you can prove it somehow.
First- the increased Memory consumption of Windows Vista compared to XP is due to Superfetch, which is in and of itself an improvement in spades on the "prefetch" technologies used by XP. Windows 7 still uses Superfetch, but because so many people whine and complain, Microsoft reduced the aggressiveness of SuperFetch in windows 7, or so it seems from my experience (this is notable, since I didn't quote some random joker off the internet from an equally random and inconsequential blog) I find it leaves a lot more memory unused. Right now my laptop sits with over a GB of free RAM
This seems good, to a person who has no idea. free memory is wasted memory. my desktop has 8GB and according to task manager 15MB of that is "free". However, if I start any application, they don't get memory errors, since Superfetch is holding 6GB of memory and caching commonly used data, and simply releases it when required, allowing older pages to fall back to the pagefile (or just deleted, depends what the resource is)
on this low-resource configuration Windows 7 uses dramatically less RAM than Vista, and also has a smaller hard-disk footprint.
All I see is a meaningless wall of text that I have to decipher into managable chunks lest I overdose on ignorance.
First, you make no definition of the word "used". Again, free RAM is wasted RAM. it juts sits there. if I was running XP (64-bit) on this machine, I'd have around 6 or 7GB of memory "free" and only 1GB "used". But what the *censored* did I pay for 7 other GB of RAM for if it isn't used at all? At least Vista/7 Use this RAM, and Vista (and 7 with a few tweakems) actually use all this wasted memory for something useful, like caching frequently used data. Something Linux has been doing for quite some time, actually. LOOOONG before Vista. Nobody said Linux was a memory hog then so I doubt the same can be said of either Vista or 7; certainly Vista has higher memory requirements, but the main reason 7 has a lower requisite is merely due to the changing of a few default settings, and of course standard incremental optimization.
WinXP uses even less than either. Windows 7 has the same requirments as xp, while vista had complaints about hardware limitations
WinXP uses less then either, yes. something I proved as simply wasteful in my previous paragraph. Windows 7 has the same requirements but requirements are meaningless anyway and anybody who actually uses them is a fool. Windows 7 does not have the same requirements as XP, either. This you just invented on the spot- XP can run with 64MB of RAM. Windows 7 cannot. XP can run with a K6-2; Windows 7... well, actually I dunno if it can run on that machine. It certainly won't be as speedy as windows XP on it. (if it works at all)
http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/22381-512mb-ram-performance-comparison-windows-7-vs-vista-vs-xp/
Go to some real forums and read the facts.
one second you're saying your a hardcore gamer and Windows 7 is faster for your gaming, the next your saying it's better with a minimum configuration. The latter is true; the former is false. Windows 7 is optimized for netbooks, so it can run better with any low configuration. This mostly as a result of a different default configuration. Windows Vista can have it's config changed in the same way. For example, a default Vista install installs Windows sidebar *shudder*. This probably accounts for the difference in RAM usage for most people (aside from of course the whole "we better leave a huge chunk of RAM unused by superfetch, otherwise dumbasses will think that it's a memory hog!) This doesn't translate into better performance with more memory installed, it simply means MS added a few more tweaks when it finds it's running on a slow machine. (actually, I think they may have redefined the SM_SLOWMACHINE constant to return "true" for higher configurations, but that's purely conjecture. It would make sense, though, and certainly speed up any program that checks that metric.
This forum is full of bios newbies and I would expect better from the mods comon! Brainwashed from doing too many 'i love you' microsoft courses.
I haven't taken any Microsoft courses. Somehow I believe the MS courses you've taken aren't actually legitimate courses but rather episodes of Barney. Not sure how you can confuse a dry technical supervisor with a giant purple dinosaur, but peopel do some freaky things on drugs, like use a mac.
You say, my claims imply that Windows 7 is some kind of complete rewrite, which is simply not true? It was spos to be!
...
Then again Vista is built from Win95 code, it must be awesome to re-use things and save on money. 
woah... slow down... run that by me again?
Vista is built from Win95 code
Wow. you're are a dumbass. Windows 95 was part of the "original" windows line; that is- 1.0->ME, were all the same codebase.
Windows NT was released around the same time as windows 3.1, and it was designed differently from the ground up. This is what became NT 3.1, 3.51, 4, W2k, XP, Vista, and 7. None are rewrites of any previous version. Because, A:) rewriting always wastes far more time then refactoring, and B:) the windows codebase isn't quite like that "hello world" batch program that you made last week. It's a bit longer. Anyway, the fact that you even think there is any morsel if windows 95 code in there (although I guess there might be some, mostly in the area of the shell/Explorer, since that was not in the original incarnations of NT but rather "stolen" from windows 95. (I'd imagine they had to rewrite explorer to work with NT. I say this from experience working with both 9x and Windows NT as platforms, they are completely different in many ways, similar in other ways, and generally making code work on both is a huge pain. It is because of that I cannot provide "links" to my own "proof", because I actually understand how the OS works, rather then making huge generalizations based on a few numbers in task manager.
Anything works great on a i7 core, 12GB, 1TB beast, we don't need to care if it's crappy code. 
I find it generally amusing that you can even pretend to know what the code looks like. Thank god I found an expert though! I've been trying to decide wether to implement a interface via a single concrete class and simply cast all references to the interface so I can use the interface methods, or wether I should use a virtual base class and create classes derived from it and use the polymorphic features provided by almost all OOP supporting languages to cast any derived class to the base class. This is good in that it will allow me to implement the base functionality once in the base class and have that functionality duplicated in the various derived classes, but I wanted to get an opinion from an expert before I went ahead and implemented any of this. Thank goodness you came along with your ability to tell when code is crappy purely based on your own volition.
I could list a million different sites and forums that provide advance testings and performance monitoring... sure these could be unrelible and bios but 89% all say the same thing and I've done the tests myself. So tell me it's all wrong and should be ignored. 
I'm sure there are millions of sites preaching anti-semitism and child pedophilia, but that hardly makes it right.
The only issue I see here is paying Microsoft more cash for Win7 Ultimate. 
I think it's cheaper then windows Vista Ultimate
don't believe in using anti-virus scanners either, hint, hint, someone
That would be myself. I've covered my reasons for it personally a number of times that I won't bother to reiterate here. I know Allan disagrees with me, but we certainly don't argue about it. In fact, i've argued against going "nekkid" like I do for many various posters; simply based on what their experience level seemed to be. And even that's not a perfect determinate factor; after all, from what I understand Raymond Chen uses a Virus Scanner, and I'm not about to tell him otherwise, since I wouldn't be able the find reasons for and against that he couldn't!
I certainly don't try to make people not use AV programs, because running nekkid is certainly not something that I'd let my grandma do. (in more ways then one).
In any case, if somebody is building a <NEW> machine then they should choose windows 7 over Vista, and I certainly would; it wouldn't make sense not to (well, unless you already have a spare Vista License that you can use). The original query was with regards to an upgrade; which would mean paying for Windows 7. Not really worth the trouble unless they are going to clean install it, though.
