Vista Sucks, Windows 7 Rocks

[neelchauhan]

  I never got the Free Windows 7 Upgrade, I can't return the PC. On Dell's Website, I saw this:

1. You may return your new or refurbished system up to 21 days from the date of invoice.
2. It is important that you return everything on your order, and that it is in its original packaging.
3. We will credit your account for the price of the system (minus initial shipping and handling and applicable restocking fees).
......
Dell makes it easy to resolve your technical issues through service and support. Every Dell Inspiron desktop and notebook comes with:

An outstanding limited warranty
Dell's at-home/on-site, or mail-in service plan
Online support at http://support.dell.com/home.aspx
24x7 phone support at 1-800-624-9896
 

But I can make a amazing PC under $600 which preforms better than my primary PC. Maybe less features for an average user but amazing for a expert. All things in the Windows 7 Advantages support that amazing PC.

• Vista has so much bugs it can crash.
• My PC has Windows Messanger which asked me to log in. I have a Windows Live account with my regular eMail but I only use it for posting Windows Gadgets and downloading Windows Beta releases
• If you don't have the Ultimate edition, you are unproductive (At least if you're a expert).
• The side of the "Favorite Links" usually does not include "Videos" while in Windows 7, it does.
• Without the Business or Ultimate edition, you will need to install VMWare or VirtualBox which contains unsafe NIC and USB drivers
• I never got a major crash in Windows XP, even on a 266MHz PC (I really did it) while on this modern PC, It crashes often.
• It is harder to align Windows in half in Vista than on Windows 7
• Both XP and Windows 7 are faster in bootup time and in benchmarks such as 3dMark Vantage than Vista and use Less storage space.
• Windows Vista = Life with Walls

I also have more problems.
I don't want to use pirated Windows 7, nor any Windows Vista now.
Windows 7 advantages include:

• Easy access to any tab in IE from the start menu
• Crashes less
• Windows XP mode for legacy applications to run on standard enviroment (Based on CPU too.)
• Windows can align easily in half on single monitor (Dual monitor version was there since Windows 98 if you expand your desktop to two monitors, so that's why I will never use Intel GMA.)
• It is easier to do things. I can save a average of one to three hours every day on the computer.
• Minimizing all windows except one is as easy as shaking a Window.
• It's faster. Pentium II ran Windows 7 while people need a Pentium III or AMD Athlon for Vista. A Overclocked Core i7 Extreme Edition + Windows 7 = FAST!!! (Sure I won't get a Core i7 but I saw benchmarks online, both Overclocked Core i7 and Vista vs Windows 7.
• Searching is faster, so I don't have to have Google desktop anymore. I don't have Google Desktop on my PC.

I knew about Windows 7 almost instantly after the Windows Vista release. I tought it would be useful. My parents tought I would just like a new PC but I hate it. They overpayed for it and they still never saw those amazing specs.

[lostcoast]

You only get the win7 upgrade as it becomes available to the vendors 

[neelchauhan]

You only get the win7 upgrade as it becomes available to the vendors 

I can't waste valuable money on the sucking system.

[Allan]

I happen to think Vista is an excellent OS.

[kpac]

Vista has so much bugs it can crash.

Never had any.

My PC has Windows Messanger which asked me to log in. I have a Windows Live account with my regular eMail but I only use it for posting Windows Gadgets and downloading Windows Beta releases

So?

If you don't have the Ultimate edition, you are unproductive (At least if you're a expert).

Why?

Without the Business or Ultimate edition, you will need to install VMWare or VirtualBox which contains unsafe NIC and USB drivers

Install them for what?

It is easier to do things. I can save a average of one to three hours every day on the computer.

You know what RAM is?

I happen to think Vista is an excellent OS.

I completely agree.

[soybean]

I happen to think Vista is an excellent OS.

I agree.  And, Vista Home Premium is fine for many users.

[patio]

Not sure where this rant is going but 1/2 of the info is inaccurate at best...

Carry on.

[Mulreay]

I have used Vista for 3yrs and i HAVE NO PROBLEMS DO YOU KNOW WHY? Its because I take care of my computer I listen to advice and clean things that trusted people tell me to do. This anti-vista thing needs to be crushed: there is nothing wrong with Vista so stop spreading stupid comments about it. It works fine and is very good.

[james202428]

Windows xp is alot better than vista in my opinion and i believe my opinion is correct

and you can take care of vista and xp and xp is still better in my opinion

and it does work fine but not as fine as xp why do you think xp is still more expensive

[Allan]

Windows xp is alot better than vista in my opinion and i believe my opinion is correct

Ummmm - no. Your opinion is your opinion.

and you can take care of vista and xp and xp is still better in my opinion

I don't even know what that means.

and it does work fine but not as fine as xp why do you think xp is still more expensive

Brilliant

[Boozu]

Windows xp is alot better than vista in my opinion and i believe my opinion is correct

I agree.

Ummmm - no. Your opinion is your opinion.

That is true.

[james202428]

anywho i would suggest people to use xp over vista because i think it is better and if you think vista is better then use it but it's my opinion and i thought i would share it

and i didn't say my opinion was somebodys elses opion and i didn't say my opinion was correct i believe it to be correct but you have to pick one It's like ordering something at a restuarant it's so hard to pick the best one and your not really sure which one is the best but you pick what you think will taste the best and that is xp vista kinda has a bitter taste after you try it

there's nothing wrong with thinking your right as long as you don't say your correct wait a minute that's what i said no wait minute i said i believe it to be correct. people can't be sure on everything sometimes you have take the best guess by what you believe to be the best choice and that's xp

you can't be sure on everything you sometimes have to choose on what you think is correct by educated guesses

[Boozu]

Thank you for sharing.

[kpac]

anywho i would suggest people to use xp over vista because i think it is better and if you think vista is better then use it but it's my opinion and i thought i would share it

Are you a parrot?

[neelchauhan]

Never had any.
So?
Why?
Install them for what?
You know what RAM is?
I completely agree.

Well, I will Install Windows XP Pro and my system is at the maximum memory it can hold.

[Allan]

Well, I will Install Windows XP Pro and my system is at the maximum memory it can hold.

Huh?

[BC_Programmer]

I love how well he addressed each of kpacs points.

I find "arguments" against Any Operating System are usually remarks about their specific experiences (such as that crap that was said about messenger or something) which have nothing to do with the operating system, or the mindless ramblings of somebody who refuses the accept change. (It's different! therefore I am confused).

Also I love the vast swathe of arguments presented in favour of Windows XP.


Windows 7 is an improvement but IMO it's no more significant then the improvement from Win98 to Win98SE.

I never got the Free Windows 7 Upgrade, I can't return the PC. On Dell's Website, I saw this:But I can make a amazing PC under $600 which preforms better than my primary PC. Maybe less features for an average user but amazing for a expert. All things in the Windows 7 Advantages support that amazing PC.

I read this as, "I can no longer get a free OS for my old PC, therefore I will disregard the deprecated value and perform a direct comparison with what I can get today for a similar price"

Vista has so much bugs it can crash.

It's funny, people say "OMG VISTA IS SO FULL OF BUGZ IT SUXORS" and yet at the same time have a hard time elucidating any specific bug. Why? Becuase they haven't experienced one. So they make one up. "OMGZ I CANZ SEE MY DESKTOP THROUGH DE AERO DIS IS SECURITY ISSUE".

My PC has Windows Messanger which asked me to log in. I have a Windows Live account with my regular eMail but I only use it for posting Windows Gadgets and downloading Windows Beta releases

This has absolutely nothing to do with Vista or windows 7. I might also add that in general the concept of "signing in" is used to prevent others from using your account. IF you don't want messenger, uninstall it. Don't want it starting at start-up? change that option. Don't blame the OS because your too daft to explore options that are right in front of you.

If you don't have the Ultimate edition, you are unproductive (At least if you're a expert).

By that logic it won't affect you anyways. Although I am curious as to what features of the ultimate edition you speak of are needed to be productive. And no, Aero glass doesn't fit in that category.. In fact, it's probably best to go without that, being a security issue and all.

The side of the "Favorite Links" usually does not include "Videos" while in Windows 7, it does.

*censored* kind of backwards logic is that? it saves you the ten god *censored* seconds it  takes to drag the videos folder to the Favorite links bar? That's right. you can add items to that bar yourself. I know, it's scary. try to take deep breaths.

I mean, by what kind of twisted logic is this even an argument?

Without the Business or Ultimate edition, you will need to install VMWare or VirtualBox which contains unsafe NIC and USB drivers

Again, what for? What feature of Business or Ultimate give you these features that you recover with VMWare/VirtualBox? Additionally unsigned is NOT the same as unsafe.

I never got a major crash in Windows XP, even on a 266MHz PC (I really did it) while on this modern PC, It crashes often.

OK here is the problem, people say "it crashes all the time" but never actually define what they mean by crash. Also I personally wouldn't blame the Operating System if your unable to realize that you shouldn't be giving that "all of duty 4.exe" 4KB file admin permissions and then wondering why things are crashing.

It is harder to align Windows in half in Vista than on Windows 7

It's not harder, it's probably just more inconvenient. OF course when you have the hand-eye coordination of a dead weasel it's no surprise things get frustrating.

Both XP and Windows 7 are faster in bootup time and in benchmarks such as 3dMark Vantage than Vista and use Less storage space.

Thank god for benchmarks. My favourite thing about most benchmarks is they conveniently seem to forget to install a driver or something similar on one of the Operating Systems.

Windows Vista = Life with Walls

Barriers most people see are often constructed by their own rejection of the mildly paradigm shifts that Vista represents.

I also have more problems.

I don't want to use pirated Windows 7, nor any Windows Vista now.

Your problems extend far beyond the realm of computing.

Easy access to any tab in IE from the start menu

IE tabs are even easier to access from IE. OH hey, that's a feature on vista.

Crashes less

[citation needed] By the way, personal accounts are not a citation. neither are your brother's aunt's second cousin twice removed Plumbers dogs previous owners experience.

Windows XP mode for legacy applications to run on standard enviroment (Based on CPU too.)

I have that with Vista. It's called VMWare+Unity. And it works with more then just XP. Not that it's relevant.

The only reason programs don't run on Vista is because the people that made them didn't make them right. they take shortcuts. for example, some "clever" programmers noticed that "GetDesktopWindow() Always returns 0. Hey, why not just use 0! Of course with DWM this concept can fall apart quicker then a Sally Struthers diet plan. But of course this is Vista's fault somehow.

Windows can align easily in half on single monitor (Dual monitor version was there since Windows 98 if you expand your desktop to two monitors, so that's why I will never use Intel GMA.)

If I may make a similar statement.

"the taskbar is longer with two monitors. Running with more then one monitor has been supported since Windows 98. That's why I dislike Matrox."

It is easier to do things. I can save a average of one to three hours every day on the computer.

what "things"? This is the problem, making vague references to "crashes" and "things" and making blanket statements that are completely meaningless without a proper context.

Minimizing all windows except one is as easy as shaking a Window.

I hope that is disablable. that feature would piss me off.

It's faster. Pentium II ran Windows 7 while people need a Pentium III or AMD Athlon for Vista. A Overclocked Core i7 Extreme Edition + Windows 7 = FAST!!! (Sure I won't get a Core i7 but I saw benchmarks online, both Overclocked Core i7 and Vista vs Windows 7.

Windows 95 can install on a 386. I saw benchmarks too.

Searching is faster, so I don't have to have Google desktop anymore. I don't have Google Desktop on my PC.

If you had Google desktop it's no surprise you found Vista "slow".

I knew about Windows 7 almost instantly after the Windows Vista release. I tought it would be useful. My parents tought I would just like a new PC but I hate it. They overpayed for it and they still never saw those amazing specs.

And we have come full-circle, you didn't even buy the god *censored* machine, and your quick to point out it's flaws. Maybe when your spending your own money on things you can start complaining about things but in the meantime be glad that, unlike me, you don't have to suffer with a Monochrome 286 for nearly 3 years. (2001-2003). (although at the time "suffer" wasn't nearly the word I would have used, it was faster then no PC at all, and unlike some of you hoity toity types, with your Naked bareback elephant polo, I have developed an appreciation and understanding for many of the steps that PC's, and computers in general - have taken to make the user experience better.

Sadly now any retard can claim to be a windows expert. Back in the day if you couldn't figure out the right DOS command to perform file management you were executed on the spot. Really cleaned up the gene pool.

[Boozu]

BC_Programmer that was a very interesting rant I enjoyed reading it. Please do not read my next comment. I have not used vista a tone but the few times I did, I found it frustrating because the layout was different (I can not go into detail because I have not used it in a wile). Like office 2007, the layout was different in such a way that it seemed like it was something totally different even tough it was not. I never really noticed any bugs but I did not like the learning curve. Windows 7 for some reason seamed very easy to learn however possibly because I new that it was going to be the next (major windows) OS so I ignored any problems that may have come up.

[BC_Programmer]

Yeah, being used to XP/Office 2003, and then having to use Vista/Office 2007 can be annoying, even more so when your really not just messing around, but actually trying to do something and get something done... and even MORE so when you know exactly how you'd do it in the previous version. I think the key is trying to learn the software a bit before you end up needing to do something... Although I guess that applies for anything.

[Boozu]

Maby that is why Win7 seamed so easy. I learned how to use it before I actually started to do things.

[freakinerick]

i am xp pro sp2 user and upgraded in xp3.. as i compare xp is much better than vista.. some online game is not compatible with vista..


 ah i forgot to tell i have dual boot  for vista ultimate and xp in my desktop.. unfortunately i cant install my vista in my laptop lol

[james202428]

Where does ubuntu and mac fit into this i think ubuntu has alot faster booting and doesn't seem to crash are slow down as much as xp to bad it didn't have more you could download macs are alot more secure and very few crashes by what i hear.  but you can't download near as much stuff as with windows.  i would pick ubuntu if i could download all the stuff online and on cds like a can with windows ubuntu is just mainly good for internet and word docs and it does have a huge selection of games in sypatic already downloaded like 50 smaller games.  it does seem to stall on the fewer of the bigger racing games they had that wasn't near the graphics as when i use windows. ubuntu is bassicly has windows xp speed windows vistas fancy graphical effects macs sucerity but hears the downside windows 95 gaming capabilites. and about the same selection they had back then to.

[Mulreay]

i am xp pro sp2 user and upgraded in xp3.. as i compare xp is much better than vista.. some online game is not compatible with vista..

Atleast we have stopped the blanket statements  Yes Vista is awful not playing that online game I mean that is why Vista was brought out for all you plucky online gamers, such a lame argument.

Where does ubuntu and mac fit into this

Have you read the title to this thread by any chance?   
In fact has anyone?  

[james202428]

Yes i did read the title and yes it isn't on the exact subject,   but it's close thought i would bring it up for some more chit chat,    didn't think anyone would care.
 

And what do you mean by anyone,   all the posts i read seemed to be on subject.

[Mulreay]

Well you need to re-read. Just look at the topic header then read the 75% of arguments.
And how can Ubuntu and Mac be close to the topic? It's not the same system or manufacturer.
May be we should change the header to Everything about Win sucks apart from XP and if you have a MAC or Ubuntu please feel free to chirp up. 

[james202428]

Yes these posts are not 100 percent on topic no conversation hardly is but they were on topic.

[Mulreay]

I just don't think you appreciate how many times we have argued this out in numerous threads. The argument is getting very very old.

[james202428]

you are the first person i seen on this forum telling somebody they were off topic

[Mulreay]

Stick around long enough you will see it a lot..

[Boozu]

Every thing you two just said was off so (to Mulreay) stop complaining about people being off topic. And just so this is on topic. I like Win7.

[Mulreay]

I'm so glad your here to tell me that... 

[Sinistalker]

Wow.....this topic isn't at all about win Vista vs. 7, it's about a bunch of ***holes that need to feel superior so they just bash each other, more accurately, they team bash the ones who feel differently. Ok you all like Vista, and to be more fair, if I understand correctly, your "concern" is not that Vista is better, but that people who disagree are not providing evidence. Guess what. You didn't start this thread. Someone who feels 7 is better did. That means this thread is about thinking 7 is good and Vista sucks. The poster of this thread is not required to appease you or present arguments that will be up to the standards that you require to end your assault on this thread.
We get it. You are U83R 1337 and you LOOOOVVVVEEEEE Vista and anyone who doesn't is a caveman. Vista is the wave of the future!!! If you don't like it, you're afraid of change!!! .......tell me.........why would someone afraid of something new prefer Windows 7 (a NEWer windows) to Vista ( a less new Windows) further more, if Vista is so great, Why did Microsoft act so quickly after Vista to release 7. We all know Windows 7 is SIMILAR to Vista. As a previous poster mentioned, (paraphrasing) Vista to 7 is like 98 to 98SE........you know another time Microsoft quickly released a new Windows that was similar to the previous version? ME and XP.....what's that?.....noone has been talking about ME? that's right cause ME SUCKED and that's why they put out XP......to right the wrong.......like it or not, That is why Windows 7 exists.

For the sake of appeasement. I will state the following. I am an XP fan. My 1 GB RAM system runs faster and smoother (runs = loading windows, applications, Firefox, streaming video, all media players) than my Vista system with 4GB RAM......now I have not mentioned the CPU's so, surely you'll jump to that fact and spend a lengthy post implying my lack of intelligence due to it, Surely every problem I have encountered (Video plugins crashing, choppy video, choppy audio, mouse halting, applications crashing at startup) will be chalked up to either my CPU or my mistreatment of my system.  So for that, feel free. As far as mistreatment, I regularly disk cleanup, defrag, clear caches, and this Vista system was just within the past 3 weeks reformatted, Vista reinstalled, Drivers, codecs, etc updated, everything put to it's most current configuration, optimized vitals (such as Virtual Memory, Hardware acceleration, etc.) and it is still the gimp horse in comparison to my XP system.

My point, the thread was started by someone who feels one way for the reasons stated. If you disagree, fine. Don't feel he presented his case well? That's fine too. You want to bash him and anyone who agrees with him and try to pound your opinion in as the correct logical choice? Get bent. Noone cares. Moderator or not. As far as the Moderators who participate in the assault on the founder of this thread, you are a joke. The only thing you can apparently moderate is how hard to squeeze when loving yourself, because you OBVIOUSLY love yourself.
There, now I have resorted to personal, unfounded, off-topic stabs. On that note I am done. Good day. XP, YAY!

[patio]

Wow.....this topic isn't at all about win Vista vs. 7, it's about a bunch of ***holes that need to feel superior so they just bash each other, more accurately, they team bash the ones who feel differently.

Then:

My point, the thread was started by someone who feels one way for the reasons stated. If you disagree, fine. Don't feel he presented his case well? That's fine too. You want to bash him and anyone who agrees with him and try to pound your opinion in as the correct logical choice? Get bent. Noone cares. Moderator or not. As far as the Moderators who participate in the assault on the founder of this thread, you are a joke. The only thing you can apparently moderate is how hard to squeeze when loving yourself, because you OBVIOUSLY love yourself.
There, now I have resorted to personal, unfounded, off-topic stabs. On that note I am done. Good day. XP, YAY!

Looks like you have illustrated your callous definition of others...

[mroilfield]

Then:

Looks like you have illustrated your callous definition of others...

Lets not forget that he did in a thread that was over a year old and started by someone that isn't a member any more. 

[BC_Programmer]

Actually I sometimes wonder how people even find these ancient threads. I know when I was starting out I would often go astray into the depths of the forum pages and end up replying to an ancient post and then Homer would yell at me... but I don't think I went back to threads that were an entire year old. I'm thinking maybe a google search somehow turned this up as a result?

Whatever happened to "Homer" anyway?

tell me.........why would someone afraid of something new prefer Windows 7 (a NEWer windows) to Vista ( a less new Windows) further more, if Vista is so great, Why did Microsoft act so quickly after Vista to release 7. We all know Windows 7 is SIMILAR to Vista. As a previous poster mentioned, (paraphrasing) Vista to 7 is like 98 to 98SE........you know another time Microsoft quickly released a new Windows that was similar to the previous version? ME and XP.....what's that?.....noone has been talking about ME? that's right cause ME SUCKED and that's why they put out XP......to right the wrong.......like it or not, That is why Windows 7 exists.

Better marketing? or, in this case, because everybody and their dog heard "stories" about Vista, so many avoided it; but Win7 isn't Vista, so they blithely ignore the warnings as unapplicable, even though  they are the same Major Version. And then of course Win7 works out fine for them, and they say "it works a lot better then Vista"... despite... "having NEVER used Vista before"...

ME was released in September 2000, XP RTM was released a little over a year later; but really they had no intention of following the consumer line (9x/ME) after ME; it was all about Whistler, in fact that's partly why ME wasn't so great (although to be honest I never had any trouble with it... aside from it stripping out the useful diagnostic stuff like boot to command prompt/MS-DOS mode); they were focusing on NT and not the 9x codebase so basically ME was a stopgap measure to try to squeeze a bit of blood from the ailing stone that was the 9x codebase before it was retired; this is also why the XP features that ME had were more polished in XP; system restore, for example. Additionally, Microsoft didn't scramble and work on windows 7 in the interceding year; they had been developed concurrently, with Longhorn being the Vista release and blackcomb becoming win7 In fact Win7 was in development as a separate fork as far back as 2003 or so if Osterman is to be believed.; I think, that in some sense, because of the relatively long period of time between consumer Operating systems between XP and Vista (what was it, 8 years? whereas before they usually release in 1-3 year increments), consumers had a bloated expectations that were popped by a rusty nail when it was revealed that Windows Vista was...

simply another version of windows and not the cure for Cancer . After 8 years though nothing short of a miracle is likely to cause user satisfaction.

I predict something very similar may be experienced by some when GearBox releases their version of DNF. At least it will be done though. Although I think the jokes will remain.

My point, the thread was started by someone who feels one way for the reasons stated. If you disagree, fine. Don't feel he presented his case well? That's fine too. You want to bash him and anyone who agrees with him and try to pound your opinion in as the correct logical choice? Get bent.

If somebody feels like presenting a case-by case rebuttal of their reasoning, I don't see how that directly translates as an assault. From my perspective it was a discussion. Points are rebutted with counter-points and those counter-points are further refuted. And so on and so forth; ideally a discussion of this nature should get all sides thinking about their stance as well as perhaps understanding the other side at least to some degree; In any case, though, anybody who get's their *censored* in a twist over a Windows Operating System needs to give their head a shake. Everybody knows Linux is the best anyway, and there is no use debating who comes in second. 

[reddevilggg]

Seem to me that a collection of idiots newbies are joining this site just to do absolutely NOTHING except argue. Me thinks most of these idiots newbies are the same people, re-joining.

If somebody feels like presenting a case-by case rebuttal of their reasoning, I don't see how that directly translates as an assault. From my perspective it was a discussion. Points are rebutted with counter-points and those counter-points are further refuted. And so on and so forth; ideally a discussion of this nature should get all sides thinking about their stance as well as perhaps understanding the other side at least to some degree; In any case, though, anybody who get's their *censored* in a twist over a Windows Operating System needs to give their head a shake. Everybody knows Linux is the best anyway, and there is no use debating who comes in second. 

The voice of reason, nuff said 

[Mulreay]

Everybody knows Linux is the best anyway, and there is no use debating who comes in second. 

You take that back!! 

[Sinistalker]

(I have removed this post)

[Sinistalker]

Are you a parrot?

It's not harder, it's probably just more inconvenient. OF course when you have the hand-eye coordination of a dead weasel it's no surprise things get frustrating.

These are not case by case rebuttles of a discussion, these, in fact, have very little to do with the argument presented by the OP.

I just don't think you appreciate how many times we have argued this out in numerous threads. The argument is getting very very old.

This is where my point about don't like it, don't touch it comes in. If the convo is getting so old, why did you bother to post?

I will admit I had not realized how old this thread was. If I had I wouldn't have bothered. 

[reddevilggg]

I will admit I had not realized how old this thread was. If I had I wouldn't have bothered. 

...........and yet, here you are again. With nothing to say except a represntation of your own negativity. [yawn].


 What name are you going to re-join with next week?

[spock]

When Win 7 came out I was skeptical of everyone here that it was as good as they said it was (much to the ire of the moderator). Now that I'm using it, I love it! Windows finally got it right! I don't see how it can much be improved upon.

[BC_Programmer]

These are not case by case rebuttles of a discussion, these, in fact, have very little to do with the argument presented by the OP.

ACtually, it was. a reply to "It is harder to align Windows in half in Vista than on Windows 7". It's not harder- it's just more inconvenient. That's a fact. Additionally, their note was more highlighting the new features of the OS; it would be like saying that it's easier to perform a system restore using XP then it was in windows98, which is sort of self-evident being that Win98 didn't have system restore.

This is where my point about don't like it, don't touch it comes in.

translation: "if you don't agree with everybody in the thread about everything they say, you shouldn't post". Nonsense. Besides this point is irrelevant. When an opinion is presented as a fact, that's what I have a problem with. It's the difference between, say, Allan's post of "I happen to think that Vista is an excellent OS" as opposed to saying "Vista is an excellent OS" the second is a statement of universal fact, whereas the first is their own opinion; the latter is something open to argue, the former is not. The original post simply lists a bunch of opinions, very few of which are based on any sort of fact and most of which stem from affect bias and appeals to tradition. If somebody doesn't like Vista, I of course have no problem personally with them using XP, or Windows 7; I really don't care. It's when they list these personal opinions as fact with no substantiation that I have issue with. Much like Linux users declaring that "Windoze sucks" as if they have some sort of inside track to knowledge and are delivering their messages to use lowly vermin, then they wonder why we don't worship Stallman.

that's right cause ME SUCKED and that's why they put out XP......to right the wrong.......like it or not, That is why Windows 7 exists.

First you say "ME SUCKED". Alright- then you go on... but, you never actually explain how ME sucked. You just state it as fact; it's not, it's an opinion, and yours is that ME sucked. Myself, I think the entire 9x line was pretty bad... then again, I feel that way about any monolithic kernel. So in a sense, I do agree. I haven't had any more problems with ME then I had with Windows 98 or 95 though, so I cannot say that ME sucked any more then them, personally (aside from the fact that they removed the DOS prompt stuff, which was why I avoided it as much as I could) but then you say "like it or not, That is why Windows 7 exists." As if it is fact. It's not. Windows 7 would exist regardless of their "reasoning" to put out XP(which was more akin to "release a new version and advance the codebase" then any of the common misperception of "well, they must have done it because of X" nonsense, which is pure speculation that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's follow this through; let's start off and assume what you say is true; that XP was released to "right the wrong" that was ME.

First problem: why did they change the entire architecture? if ME was the wrong, then clearly going back to a architecture akin to windows 98SE would be how they would "right" the wrong. But they didn't; how does merging the consumer and workstation editions of the same product (Windows) equate to "righting the wrong" that was the previous version? if they had done that without releasing ME, would they have been "righting the wrong" that was 98 or 2000?

Additionally you assert that Windows 7 exists because XP was released? but I think I'm misinterpreting it and you are saying windows 7 was released to right the wrong of Vista.

Now, what makes that particularly interesting is that most people claim that windows 7 being released so "close after" windows Vista is "proof" that it was released to right the "mistake" of Vista.... but it wasn't released close after Vista; Vista went RTM in 2006, windows 7 was released in 2009; that's three years. By that same logic we could say that almost every other version of windows was released to right the "wrongs" of the version before it, and of course such a line of logic would be easy to construct if you can simply assert that such "wrongs" exist without actually explaining what those "wrongs" are. Windows 7 is the same as Vista, aside from some tweaks to Aero and a few other tweaks to a few other things. They also tossed in a few tools and a couple other bones that are easier to advertise on the cover art. Aside from that, the core of the OS is the same. Which is fine; if people like the look and feel of Windows 7 as compared to Windows Vista, that's alright. But the thing is, about 90% of the people declaring the greatness of Win7 and how it "fixed the wrong" that was Windows Vista don't realize that Windows 7 doesn't reduce the amount of eye candy that those same people complained about being superfluous before, but also that it's basically the same; almost all of the complaints first launched against Vista in defense of XP (why an operating system by a billion dollar successful corporation needs defending is beyond me) are still perfectly valid for Windows 7; the only thing that was different between 2009 and 2006 is the fact- (and it is an indisputable fact) that PCs in 2009 were a lot more powerful, a lot cheaper, and on the whole a lot more capable of running Windows 7 when it was released; so, when people bought Windows 7 preinstalled on a computer, things were better. This can also be attributed to the fact that MS changed exactly what OEMs were allowed to do with a preinstalled version of Windows; the main cause of slowness with new Vista PCs was the OEM preloaded software; compare a Laptop that came preloaded with Windows Vista in 2006 with a newer laptop that came preloaded with Windows 7 and there is a marked decrease in crap that is installed.

[reddevilggg]

The Voice of Reason strikes again. I love your replies BC, but i am now strangely looking forward to see the trash that Sinistalker (or whatever he calls himself this week) replies with.

[Allan]

The Voice of Reason strikes again. I love your replies BC, but i am now strangely looking forward to see the trash that Sinistalker (or whatever he calls himself this week) replies with.

No need to instigate.

[BC_Programmer]

The Voice of Reason strikes again. I love your replies BC, but i am now strangely looking forward to see the trash that Sinistalker (or whatever he calls himself this week) replies with.

I am finding this topic amusing more then anything now, particularly because they essentially said they can't believe we get so worked up about it, meanwhile I don't recall anybody else swearing or using unnecessarily strong language in their approval or disapproval of anything in this topic, so the person that is indeed most worked up would be themselves.

Their lack of any factual information and basing conclusions and arguments on entirely false information, such as saying that XP was similar to ME, despite them being about as similar as as a kangaroo is to a jumping spider. Sure, they both jump, but that's where the similarities end. It makes their explanations/reasoning seem more like ad hoc hypotheses.

[reddevilggg]

No need to instigate.

 

After everything thats being posted in this topic, i get that. 

[Sinistalker]

I am finding this topic amusing more then anything now, particularly because they essentially said they can't believe we get so worked up about it, meanwhile I don't recall anybody else swearing or using unnecessarily strong language in their approval or disapproval of anything in this topic, so the person that is indeed most worked up would be themselves.

I'll respond to that with your own words.

*censored* kind of backwards logic is that? it saves you the ten god *censored* seconds it  takes to drag the videos folder to the Favorite links bar? That's right. you can add items to that bar yourself. I know, it's scary. try to take deep breaths.

I mean, by what kind of twisted logic is this even an argument?

Their lack of any factual information and basing conclusions and arguments on entirely false information, such as saying that XP was similar to ME, despite them being about as similar as as a kangaroo is to a jumping spider. Sure, they both jump, but that's where the similarities end. It makes their explanations/reasoning seem more like ad hoc hypotheses.

I stated why I believe Vista to be inferior to 7, but since you prefer credible sources (and rightfully so) this may be more what you're interested in.

“Once we're even booted we've done a lot to improve the memory usage, and the graphics performance. This graph that you see on the screen here shows how in Vista we scale linearly with the number of open windows, so that's the amount of memory that's consumed by the system as you open more Windows. In Windows 7 we used a small fixed set of memory that doesn't grow as we open more Windows,” Angiulo stated before launching what he referred to as a torture test script designed to open in excess of 70 different windows on two identical machines running Vista and Windows 7.

The result? Windows Vista simply could not take it. This is of course nothing new to long time Vista users who had to deal with the operating system hitting speed bumps in terms of memory handling and graphics performance. Service Pack 1 indeed improved the general experience of the operating system, but what Microsoft demonstrated at WinHec 2008 is more than Vista is capable of, SP1 or no SP1.

Windows Hardware Engineering Conference - Los Angeles
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-Superior-Memory-Usage-and-Graphics-Performance-97351.shtml

The memory usage is my complaint, however I will freely and humble admit, your point about the preinstalled versions on newer systems ( quote is sited towards bottom) was brilliant, and not something I had considered.

ACtually, it was. a reply to "It is harder to align Windows in half in Vista than on Windows 7". It's not harder- it's just more inconvenient. That's a fact. Additionally, their note was more highlighting the new features of the OS; it would be like saying that it's easier to perform a system restore using XP then it was in windows98, which is sort of self-evident being that Win98 didn't have system restore.

my point wasn't so much the "it's not harder, just inconvenient" it was more of the "hand-eye coordination of a dead weasel" part that I kinda felt to be unfounded and not really backed up with factual evidence.

Additionally you assert that Windows 7 exists because XP was released? but I think I'm misinterpreting it and you are saying windows 7 was released to right the wrong of Vista.

Yes. You are correct in the second interpretation.
And I admit that you are right. I did not back that up with factual evidence. The fact that XP was a step away from 9X rather than a step back towards it completely debunks my argument.

This can also be attributed to the fact that MS changed exactly what OEMs were allowed to do with a preinstalled version of Windows; the main cause of slowness with new Vista PCs was the OEM preloaded software; compare a Laptop that came preloaded with Windows Vista in 2006 with a newer laptop that came preloaded with Windows 7 and there is a marked decrease in crap that is installed.

 Yeah. This is the one.


To Reddevil

...........and yet, here you are again. With nothing to say except a represntation of your own negativity. [yawn].


 What name are you going to re-join with next week?

I'd like to challenge that statement.  Reread what I said that this post was a resonse to, I'd like you to quote to me the "negativity" that I have "represented" in said post. I think you will find it hard to do.




BC Programmer......Anything that you have said to me that I have not replied to, I concede you are right. You make a point, and present it well, support your reasonings and discussing all angles. I agree with most of what you have said.

[BC_Programmer]

To be clear also- I do feel windows 7 is better then Windows Vista in many ways (that's why I use win7 after all ), but I don't think the difference is enough to say that it "rocks" compared to vista.

my point wasn't so much the "it's not harder, just inconvenient" it was more of the "hand-eye coordination of a dead weasel" part that I kinda felt to be unfounded and not really backed up with factual evidence.

Ahh, yes, that was my specific flavouring that I add to posts to "spruce" them up with needless metaphors.

I'll respond to that with your own words.

touche.

As for the memory usage, I believe the "open windows take more memory" in Vista issue may have been resolved with a service pack- I can't remember though, it might have been simply the way they made the older standard GDI Device Context's compatible with Aero. I believe it was a compat issue they weren't able to resolve before Vista RTM'd, so they "Brute forced" a solution in so that it worked. but... saying that Windows 7 always uses a "fixed amount" of memory for all windows doesn't make a whole of of sense, since the texture for the window will have to be stored at least once; Vista stored it in both Graphics Memory (so that it can be used by D3D) and in System Memory (so it could be accessed by "legacy" Device Context handles); with Windows 7, however, they were able to eliminate the need to have the texture in system memory for access by the legacy Device context handles, so the texture was only in graphics memory. From the perspective of something like task manager, with Vista you can see the system memory allocation of each window bitmap; while windows 7 doesn't appear to use anything extra. This however is not the "huge" savings that it was often painted as; Many applications remain responsible for their own window style; only windows with the "WS_SAVEBITS" style set will actually have their texture saved to either memory; otherwise, Windows will callback into the application to perform drawing on a temporary texture. This is relevant in that the test you quote merely says "70 windows" and that it was a "specifically designed" test application; I suspect it may have been designed in such away as to take advantage of the memory allocation scheme and Window painting methods in such a way as to provide unreasonable results, since most applications only use the "SAVEBITS" style for dialogs.

Superfetch was tweaked to be better at detecting idle time and to be less aggressive as well. I can't honestly say I've noticed any speed difference with Windows 7 compared to Vista; but then again I have a relatively fast machine (quad core with 8GB of RAM) that can handle it well; to be honest I also probably wouldn't install either Windows 7 or Windows Vista on a Single core machine or a machine with less then 2GB of RAM; I'd probably go with a Linux distro or XP, depending on what the machine was to be used for; I cannot think of a single configuration where I would, for example- choose windows Vista over Windows 7, but that's simply because Windows 7 is better- I had no intent in this thread to debate that, and if I ever did so or gave the impression I did so, I apologize for that; I just don't think the improvement is enough to say that it "rocks" compared to Windows Vista; in the same way that the improvements in Win98SE don't necessarily mean that it "rocks" and Win98FE Sucks.

[soybean]

“Once we're even booted we've done a lot to improve the memory usage, and the graphics performance. This graph that you see on the screen here shows how in Vista we scale linearly with the number of open windows, so that's the amount of memory that's consumed by the system as you open more Windows. In Windows 7 we used a small fixed set of memory that doesn't grow as we open more Windows,” Angiulo stated before launching what he referred to as a torture test script designed to open in excess of 70 different windows on two identical machines running Vista and Windows 7.

The result? Windows Vista simply could not take it. This is of course nothing new to long time Vista users who had to deal with the operating system hitting speed bumps in terms of memory handling and graphics performance. Service Pack 1 indeed improved the general experience of the operating system, but what Microsoft demonstrated at WinHec 2008 is more than Vista is capable of, SP1 or no SP1.

All of the above is a quote from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-Superior-Memory-Usage-and-Graphics-Performance-97351.shtml.  That fact was not very clear from your post; you need to more clearly note quotations from references.  You put a quotation mark at the beginning of the two paragraph quote but never closed the quote.  And, although you followed the two quoted paragraphs with the source, you could have clearly stated that you were posting the source of the quoted material; as written, it was somewhat implied but not clearly stated.

The title of this thread was somewhat inflammatory to begin with.  I use both Windows Vista and Windows 7; my laptop came with Vista and I have Win 7 on a desktop system.  Is Win 7 better?  Um, is the Pope Catholic?  Of course, Win 7 was improved over Vista.  But, to say Vista "Sucks" is just stupid.  I bought my laptop in July 2007 and installed SP2 when it was released.  The laptop has a dual-core processor and had 2GB of RAM.  My desktop system running Win 7 is a single core machine with 4GB of RAM.  The laptop has NVidia GeForce 6150 graphics; the desktop has an NVidia GeForce 6200 graphics card with 256MB of memory. So the graphics part of the two systems is somewhat similar.  The WEI (Windows Experience Index on the laptop is 2.4; on the desktop, 2.9.  On both, graphics is the lowest rated factor in the WEI.

The test in the reference of having 70 windows open is highly unlikely to ever occur in normal usage so I see it as somewhat irrelevant.  In my normal use, I may have a browser open, often with many open tabs, and then several other apps such as Word, Excel, an email client, and maybe 1 or 2 other apps.  There's really not a significant difference in performance for such usage, although the laptop at times probably has some advantage due to the dual-core processor. 

[Sinistalker]

To Soybean-

  I actually did close the quote towards the middle of the paragraph. If you re-read it, you'll find that the article I have referenced here contained a quote within, that initial quotation mark (and the closing quotation within the paragraph) is not to be me quoting the article but, rather the article quoting the speaker. In my original construction of this post, the two-paragraph citing from the article was italicized, as to mark the whole as a section I am quoting from a source.
 As you mentioned, I did post what the quotation was from as well as the URL of the site where the article could be found. I felt this was enough implecation, though, yes I suppose I could have added "Go here to see the full article" or something to that effect.

To BC Programmer-

  Much respect. Again you have present your point thoroughly. I agree that sometimes a post needs to be "spruced up" a bit, especially when the poster is not exactly making a very well formulated argument. My whole point was the entire thread began to fill up with people "sprucing up" their posts at the OP's expense and then seeing that a moderator was taking part, I had to say something. It's my nature. Again had I realized it was such an old thread, I would have let sleeping dogs lie. Either way, I was mistaken about you. I apologize.

[reddevilggg]

To Reddevil
I'd like to challenge that statement.  Reread what I said that this post was a resonse to, I'd like you to quote to me the "negativity" that I have "represented" in said post. I think you will find it hard to do.

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.

[BC_Programmer]

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.