What makes Windows 7 better than Vista?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bear in mind that we heard a lot of these very same arguments when Win2k and XP first broke on the scene a decade ago.

Folks then were struggling to get Win2k to live on 64mb of PC100 and 400mhz processors without overwhelming things.

It's just part of the constant tug of war between HW and SW standards.

As much as I liked Win2k, Win7 and x64, and not Vista, are the future. Where I can run it, I will. At some point, you have to move forward.

In two or three years, mainstream machines will have 10-20gb ram, and Vista will be a lightweight.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: javacontour


That's like running a factory where 1/2 the staff is management and the other 1/2 are the assembly line workers.


That's called "GM", but that's for another topic.
wink.gif



Shhh....we don't need the thread to get locked now....

...even though it's true.
18.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead

As much as I liked Win2k, Win7 and x64, and not Vista, are the future.


Not part of my future. I keep abreast of Winders developments so that I can help my clients that are stuck on the Redmond merry-go-round, but to the extent possible I avoid Windows installs entirely and recommend that my clients do the same.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: javacontour


That's like running a factory where 1/2 the staff is management and the other 1/2 are the assembly line workers.


That's called "GM", but that's for another topic.
wink.gif



Are you trying to get me in trouble?
 
No, no trouble, just a quick quip, that's all :)

Unless one is a unix-guy (or gal), Win7 is the way to go. I'm kinda surprised at how many folks here aren't interested in Win7. It's not Vista. In fact, where Win7 was installed, after a couple weeks of using it, 100% don't like XP when they go home to use their own PC's.
 
Businesses buy their machines on application function, not the OS. The majority of commercial WS applications are still designed for a Windows environment. And that's what the major machine vendors sell.

I agree with you if you're implying that it's an evil. But unfortunately, for commercial users, it's still a necessary one. And the commercial standard, and not the linux code that the IT guys play with at home, dictates what most consumers will buy, at least for now. The rebels and artists run Mac, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It will take the major machine vendors to break with msft before anything ever changes. Up to now, they've been happily sharing the same bed.
 
I'll update to a new Win OS when I need to run an app that the current machines won't, or when I need to replace one. Until then, my 3 year old XPS400 (XP/Hardy) and my year old Dell 530 (Vista/Jaunty) both do everything I need and run so well I'll probably jinx myself for saying this.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn


.. where Win7 was installed, after a couple weeks of using it, 100% don't like XP when they go home to use their own PC's.


Some of this may be psychological/emotional.

I have little rational reason to update from XP. But I have been looking at XP for many hours per day for years, and frankly, the look is just dated. I want to look at something diffferent.

I also want to feel like I am keeping up with technology. Will I eventually save a few seconds here and there? Probably. More rational is the idea that there might be new features that I will be able to take advantage of, but that is still not that rational, as I have not tried to identify or quantify them.

But in the end, what is rational to me is the emotional fullfillment of getting something a little better, at the time that I want it and am ready for it, and the price for it is reasonable (for a change).
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Is it really all that embarrassing? In the proper scenario,MS legally sold a license to run Windows on that machine. They win.


My Associate Pastor was asking me about this recently. Since new Apple's are using what is essentially PC hardware now, they are just high priced PCs.

I said if he wants Mac O/S, then get a Mac, but the hardware isn't going to be that much better than a PC.

The existence of "Franken-Macs" not to mention those who can get Windows to boot on "Real Macs" shows that the hardware is essentially the same today.
 
I had Vista 32 bit and Upgraded to Win7 32 bit.

Beforehand, I tested the Processor Speed (Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40 Ghz. with 4 Gb Ram).

Tests on Win 7 vs. Vista showed 30% more processor demand (make that 30% less efficiency) and 30% more memory demand than Win 7.

Going from Vista to Win 7 is like getting a new computer that has a 30% more powerful processor and 30% faster memory.

Not to mention it is so much more stable of a platform and increased security as well.

Worth the spend as Vista kept "whiting-out" several times a day fo me but was better than XP I thought..
 
Last edited:
XP 64 Pro will more then likely eat Win 7's lunch other then finding drivers for it.I thought they should have taken the code fo XP64 and built on it not reinvent the wheel.I used XP64 for about 5 years before I had issues with it. Basicly it was my Work PC and I bought it from work when they upgraded. Well about 5 years after I bought it I guess not being the origanal owner of it Windows decided that I did not have the right to use the cooperate version of XP64 that it licensed to GM. So I could no longer get updates and such. My kids still use it all the time it is in my basement.It is an old Socket A AMD Athlon
 
Originally Posted By: Pete591
I had Vista 32 bit and Upgraded to Win7 32 bit.

Beforehand, I tested the Processor Speed (Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40 Ghz. with 4 Gb Ram).

Tests on Win 7 vs. Vista showed 30% more processor demand (make that 30% less efficiency) and 30% more memory demand than Win 7.

Going from Vista to Win 7 is like getting a new computer that has a 30% more powerful processor and 30% faster memory.

Not to mention it is so much more stable of a platform and increased security as well.

Worth the spend as Vista kept "whiting-out" several times a day fo me but was better than XP I thought..



They are the same platform. Vista was a fork from the original Blackcomb project, and was essentially a wrap-up of the "completed" features from Blackcomb/7 that were available at the time. It was Microsoft's attempt to bring SOMETHING to market, when Blackcomb was still a good ways from being completed.

Comically, they omitted many of the originally intended features anyways.

Vista could be turned into Windows 7 with nothing more than a Service pack.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Vista could be turned into Windows 7 with nothing more than a Service pack.


They could, but it would be a mighty big one.

Vista has so soiled its reputation that it makes more marketing sense to do it by renaming the OS. It was too big and heavy at release for the prevailing HW. Again, the HW/SW tug of war. Today's more powerful HW blows it along fine.

W7 is leaner and faster, though. No doubt about that. While it supports a larger legacy machine group as a result, it is clear that msft in fact aimed these benefits at supporting the emerging netbook market, something Vista had problems with. All us old laptop users are just unintended beneficiaries.
 
I just did a clean install of W7 Pro yesterday and like it so far. My two year old laptop feels faster. It's a low end laptop too.
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Vista could be turned into Windows 7 with nothing more than a Service pack.


They could, but it would be a mighty big one.

Vista has so soiled its reputation that it makes more marketing sense to do it by renaming the OS. It was too big and heavy at release for the prevailing HW. Again, the HW/SW tug of war. Today's more powerful HW blows it along fine.

W7 is leaner and faster, though. No doubt about that. While it supports a larger legacy machine group as a result, it is clear that msft in fact aimed these benefits at supporting the emerging netbook market, something Vista had problems with. All us old laptop users are just unintended beneficiaries.


Exactly. Vista was essentially the sacrificial lamb to allow time for them to bring "7" to market.

Just like they did with 98, but this time it didn't become 98 SE
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

supton
Found a computer
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
supton
G
Anyone in here a guru on printers?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
grampi
paulri
Windows 11 laptop can't detect my microphone
Replies
10
Views
580
Jetronic
R
Windows 10 extremely slow HP Z230 i5-4590 16gb ram 500gb hd
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Marcozi
D
Transferring Music Files To USB: Why So Slow
2
Replies
22
Views
669
OVERKILL
Back
Top