Vista Sucks, Windows 7 Rocks

[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.