Worth going to (windows) 7 from vista?

[wavinwayne]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Maybe we should all start using Linux and Macs...


In my home network, I have systems running Linux, Vista, W7, ans OS X. All are very stable for my needs.

My personal OS preferences are:

OS X - I like Apple's apps better than the MS equivalent versions.
W7 - I like the layout of Windows Explorer better in W7 than the Vista version.
Linux - Very nice layout and FREE, but can't run iTunes, where all music is. (I do have a work-around)
Vista - No real complaints; a stable OS for my office PC needs.

FWIW, my next office computer will be a Mac, either an iMac or a Mac Mini. I simply enjoy the Mac OS better than Windows, and don't mind paying the premium for Apple's products.

 

[JustinH]

I just put together a system for my mother today.

AMD Sempron AM3 45w processor overclocked to 3ghz ($30)
ASUS Motherboard with onboard everything ($50)
Generic case and name brand power supply.
2gb geil ddr3 ram
A 160gb hard drive I had sitting here, and a sata dvdrom drive I never used.

All together I have about $130 into this system and it runs windows 7 just fantastic.

It would have ran even faster if I could get the second hidden core to unlock, but mine was junk, so I just overclocked to 3ghz using the stock heatsink and cooler. 100% stable no problem.

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The frustrating part is knowing how easily they could fix it. Since of course 7 and Vista are in many respects based on the same bloody code! LOL

I could not agree with this more! I suppose they want to only have 1 "current" OS and so as you say....


Yessir!

And if we delve into the history books here, this was the plan with Windows 2000! Microsoft intended to COMPLETELY eliminate the 9x-based OS's from the consumer market. But incompatibilities with many pieces of consumer software and the NT kernel are the reason that they cobbled together (quite literally) Windows ME at the last minute.... To allow for a "final" 9x-based "consumer" OS that would still run all the old 9x apps that would not run correctly on the NT Kernel. This gave the market "time to adapt". And since ME was so hideous and widely despised, that its presence on systems moved consumers away from the 9x platform by itself; many of them going as far as embracing 2K Pro with its speeds and stability.

The shift then from NT 5.0 (2K) to NT 5.1 (XP) was easy. People were already soured on ME, XP was the next greatest thing, and XP home became THE OS for home computers. 9x was dead and Microsoft had their wish.

MS doesn't want to support Vista anymore than they wanted to support ME. But while ME was a jerry-rigged version of Windows 98 with the 2K GUI slapped on top, Vista is in fact, in many ways, just an immature release of Windows 7. And so it gets to hang by its neck whilst its brother is heralded as being the greatest thing since sliced bread. The one taking the fall for their parents folly, whilst the other is allowed to be revered.


I'd say to this day Win2K is the single biggest leap as far as improvements over a prior OS.

I will never forget when I started using Win2K.. You could leave your system running without rebooting or crashing even while running 3D games and stressing the machine in other ways. Win9X could never do more than a day or 2 uptime with a power user.

Win2K was fantastic, I will always think it was an awesome OS in it's day.