Proof that 7 is much faster than Vista

I hope UAC could have made a whitelist after all those pop ups on which I choosed allow. But it does not.

So it is not like what you said "you can tune it for everything" at all. It just won't pop up when you change some windows settings,by default.

I like the way Norton UAC handles the pop-ups. But I found it slowed down my computer. Anyway,I'm OK with the current UAC pop-ups of 7.

 

That's what third-party software do.
Don't expect too much about Microsoft.

 

I would prefer an independent third-party review rather than some buzz talks from MS representatives. MS promised a lot before Vista releases. It turned out to be Windows ME Reborn Edition.

Not true comparison which is done by MS. Read intelligently and it's still of some value.
I would like to see a more impartial comparison by third-party source.

 

Windows vista does work. ME never worked properly.

 

Is that comment based on personal experience with Vista?

I've used it here, x64 and x32 now, for about a year, and find it to be fine. There are a few areas where other OS's are a slight bit quicker, but overall Vista has been good. WinME was junk, and I'd not compare anything to it.

 

Somehow. Got a chance to try but it isn't worth upgrading IMHO. But different people have different values on money so your opinion may differ. I'm the kind of person who only upgrades an OS for real benefits not some bells and whistles. OS is only a gateway to host third-party programs so to speak. That's the most important part of it. I don't care if it has a better notepad in the new version or something similar to that.

By the way MS seems to follow the cycle of bad and good pattern:
Windows 98 -> Windows ME (failure) -> Windows XP -> Windows Vista (failure)
History predicts Windows 7 is going to the next generation which can replace Windows XP. Did MS do it right this time? Time will tell.

 

7 is cleaner and a bit quicker than Vista, but it's really pretty much the same thing as Vista. A slightly different look now with the taskbar, and so on. 7 suffers right now from too much hype in the other direction. It just isn't all that much better than or different from Vista. I have used both quite a bit.

There were many improvements in Vista over XP, and all this has been discussed and run into the ground already.

I still stand by Vista and say that it's fine. There are some things to criticize in it, but it simply got way too much bad mouthing for no good reason. I hate to see people now idly badmouthing it for no real reason and without some good sound experience with it to draw on. XP got the same thing when it first came out, but now look how everyone praises and loves it.

Anyway, we all use what we like and for our own reasons.... I believe they're all good for various reasons, including Linux, Mac and all Win OSs.

 

I must say you have very rational and convincing arguments to support your choices. I suppose everyone believes what they want to believe, and choose accordingly. I have XP, Vistax32/x64, and TESTED Win7 for a week: Vista is a superb OS, the only negative aspect is that one needs a fast computer, in that sense Win 7 is an improvement as it requires less power.

 

Now I think people that are not content with 7 may have expected too much. What is the revolutionary OS you have expected?

My only experience of windows may have limited my imagination.

 

I want to clarify that the above pattern is observed based on how Windows performs in the desktop market. As the market statistics shows, Vista is unable to replace Windows XP. Windows XP is still taking over 2/3 shares. Reviews generally disfavour it. So it does seem to take Microsoft about 2 cycles to produce a decent OS which the majority would think it's worth upgrading. This may imply Windows 7 being the next desktop king. Let's see. Anyway this statement is made just out of fun. Don't pick your choice only based on the pattern

Vista even had problems of some of the most basic functionality when it's released. I had problems copying and pasting data in Vista when I tried it, not to say it's resource hogging and perform slower. Granted I tried much earlier and Vista released service pack since then. It may have been fixed. However Vista is still not resource friendly.
Well that only applies to me. I'm not the person who would upgrade because of some bells and whistles, or for something which sounds cool. For example I wouldn't upgrade because Windows offers UAC in Vista. It's because it would be replaced easily by FREE third-party software. Besides Windows isn't good at making some really excellent programs. The free alternative usually does much better than Microsoft.

Microsoft acts like a business and investment department rather than innovation and technology department nowadays. More often than not it "invests" on others by buying their programs and companies. I usually don't want to hear because it usually ruins what, otherwise, the really great program with bright future.

 

I never had any problems with Vista and found it fast, stable and easy to use. I have tried Windows 7 RC and liked it as well. 7 is a tiny bit faster in operation and boots and closes down faster, but its 95% the same - main difference is the aesthetics. Im back on Vista now as 7 wont run Skype 3.8, Sandboxie with IE forced and issues with Media Player and incompatible with my DVD burner.

Puss

 

Agree! MS is not going to give us a revolutionary OS any time soon which can solve most of the security problems we are seeing every day. Windows is monolithic by design and this design is not security-friendly from the ground up. Microsoft also integrates too many features into the core of the operating system. I believe MS made this decision probably because it wants to make sure people rely on their products. It does in a way that you couldn't remove some of its products without breaking the operating system. IE is being one of them. This approach has a very serious flaw by design. One exploit in any of its products affect the whole operating system. This is one of the reasons why Microsoft has so many critical vulnerabilities and exploits nowadays. I wonder whether MS realise the danger of it when MS decides to implement it in this way. MS should learn from Linux / BSD. They are modular by design and would be more resistant against exploits and vulnerabilities. MS bring some good security measures back to Windows.

Apache, open source program, dominates the server market. Still it rarely has any critical bug which can break down the whole server. On the other hand, Microsoft IIS, despite sharing a portion of the market shares only, has long been the major target for hackers, and they have been largely successful for years. See how well Apache does. Being popular is not an excuse of all those security problems desktop users are suffering nowadays.

Too much security concerns on MS Windows. Recently I'm considering installing Linux distro for newbie users. You know, the users who really have no sense of security in mind but they only use computer for common tasks only. Linux Mint and Ubuntu are user-friendly Linux. They gave me more surprises than MS did. I found it incredibly easy to be familiar with. The user-friendliness is not worse than MS Windows. Another good point is the OS is ready out-of-the-box. Most common apps have been pre-installed so it's something like install and go. Pretty cool. Last but not least it's free and open source.

 

I won't argue the merits of x vs y, I use XP myself right now. But if you remember, when XP was first released, there were many many problems with it as well. It takes a while for an OS to mature I think.

And yes, MS is a business, and as such, it exists to make money. That will always be it's primary concern.

Linux is nice, fun to play with, and certainly worthy as an alternative to Win, however, in the end and in day to day usage, I find myself happier with Win.