Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Windows 7 Help and Support' started by dzuchowski, Feb 9, 2009.
Is Windows 7 really Vista in Drag?
That question can lead into a very long thread! I have tuned Vista to the hilt. It performs, in consideration of improved hardware, as well as XP. When I examined Windows 7, there appeared to be very few differences. If you, for example, scan the system files, you will find them mostly untouched, only a few have (slighlty) changed size. When I began to "customise" my Windows 7, applying the same trick as I did with Vista, I found 90% of it had already been done. There are one or two features which have been added, but, apart from that,my own thoughts are that Windows 7 is an adaption of Vista, which Microsoft have already, expertly, pretuned and customised for the average user. The result is gratifying. You have a Vista release (which I liked) which runs smoothly "Out of the Box"
Well, that says a lot for a new OS that is 2 generations beyond XP. Shouldn't the leap-frog OS perform much better? I like the eye-candy, and I like IE8's performance on my machine and the faster boot and shut-down times. But other than that, I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade from XP to W7. (especially since IE8 will be available for XP, and I can do without the eye-candy) W7 is a fairly nice OS, granted. But for using twice the hard drive space, it does not do twice as much. My money (and time) is still with WinXP. Maybe W8 will convince me. Perhaps it will be less of a hard drive hog while giving better overall performance. But I didn't see it with Vista, and so far I don't see it with W7.
I really don't see why hard drive space is a con these days.. I mean really.. with 2TB drives being in existance for the regular consumer, how the hell is hard drive space something to complain about? hahahaha
Not sure about "two generations" Of course, one step forward was the deeper move into 64 bit. XP64 showed no reason for a move from 32 bit. I do not get a faster boot or shutdown time on 7. The biggest lag is the antivirus at the end of the chain. On the same machine, dual booting, or on identical machines, the difference can be measured in only a very few seconds. My own habits do not lead me into watching the machine either boot or close, so I am indifferent to it. If you read up on the 7 bootup, parallel use of memory technique, there does not seem to be any reason why it could not have been incorporsted into Vista or, indeed, even Xp. Again, with the difference between the size of the average hard disk, at the beginning of the XP era, and the average size now, I don't think the footprint of the OS is a consideration. Removing the pointing finger from Microsoft, for a moment, there is not a lot of good software on the market that has not telescoped in size over the past few years. With the software manufacturers at last waking up, 7 is a big step into the only future, 64bit. I think you will find that, within a year, you will have to be happy with the software you have running on XP, probably no longer supported in any way, or move on, as we did from 16bit.
who changed my poll? i made it funny for a reason. i wanted everyone to agree its vista in drag
Ya really. I just bought a new Western Digital 320 Gig hard drive for a measly $50. Do people realize just how big 320 Gigs is ....it's huge.