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.
