What If Windows 7 Is A Dud ?

Windows 7 will have the same or slightly lower system requirements than Windows Vista. In general preliminary performance tests indicate that while it is much better for office and home productivity tasks, gaming and graphics related performance takes a slight hit.

I am using Vista and with enough RAM (2GB+, 3GB recommended) it runs as fast as XP. But to be honest, apart from DX10 the only other thing I found particularly impressive about Vista is that it crashes and hangs far less than XP did, making it a more stable OS (Well, XP already didn't crash a lot but Vista almost never crashes or hangs for me!).

 

So it only changed crashing frequency?

 

I have only tried Vista for few hours. What impressed me, was that the opening alone of a new folder, was making my CPU momentarily to climb to about 40-60% (AMD x2 3800+, 2.7 GB RAM), when on XP it doesn't change at all. Also the slugginesh of the windows opening. In fact in order to have the windows to pop up at "XP speeds", i disabled aero. Only then it was *close* to the feeling of the XP. My system was also more instable, probably because of the drivers support for my motherboard (in pre-SP1 era i had terrible bsod).

The only thing that really attracted me in Vista use, was the thumbnails in the task bar. But then i discovered there are 2 little programs that do the same job in XP. So i upgraded back to XP.

Windows 7 will be better than Vista. Why? Because in the meantime, more people will have gone to quad cores/DDR3 and so it won't seem so "heavy" as Vista used to seem. I myself will probably move to quad core when Win 7 will come out and i am sure that when i do, it will seem as snappy, fast and light as XP seems to me now.

Operating systems always get better, once you pay 400$ for a good hardware upgrade. Maybe a mass transition to 64bit will help too, to take advantage of more RAM (new AMD mobos i am lookint at support 16 GB RAM. I bet Win7 64bit will "fly" with 16GB ). So, all this will increase the number of people that will say "Win 7 runs great! Better than Vista and as fast as XP".

 

it seems a lot of people are happy with it, and a lot aren't happy with it, that makes it bad, and that's the reason you can talk about xp and not have the same thing happen. but you can't talk about vista and say it works without being corrected, just like you correct me, that makes it about 50% there and therefore it's rubbish because that's not good enough, and it's also why windows 7 will be out soon. it's not difficult to work out.

edit does that first sentance make sense? lol. i'm too tired to correct it, so i hope you can follow it.

 

So you're saying that since some people doesn't like Windows Vista, it's bad? Or am I not following you correctly? In any case, Windows 7 follow Microsoft's normal release cycle (~3 years). Since Windows Vista was delayed, it seems that it will be out sooner than it should be, which is not the case.

 

no, what i was trying to say is - since it doesn't work on so many machines, no matter what the reason (for me, i admit, i think it's more to do with the vista ready sticker not being appropriate for my laptop, plus all the crap HP pre-installs) it's a fail for MS. there are just too many people who say it doesn't work for MS, or anyone else, to say vista is any kind of success. there are so many people with vista problems that it's impossible to talk about vista without it turning into a flame war, that wouldn't happen if vista worked perectly. i think there are lots of reasons vista isn't perfect and it's not all MS's fault.

i can't talk about it anymore, i only wanted to say it doesn't work because i went and bought a new computer with vista just to try it out and i haven't been able to use it through no fault of my own.

i've used linux now for a few years and haven't touched a MS os in all that time, so it's not a big problem for me.

doesn't a release cycle start when the last OS was released, or went gold?

 

LOL... that's strange. I have Vista too. And it does work.

 

you must be used to windows OSes then and not see it, for me it's really bad compared other OSes, that's all i can think of. i can see how it hangs which you probably miss because you are used to it and accept it.

 

I use both Windows and Linux constantly, and frankly I prefer Vista. It doesn't hang, there are no issues with it at all. This is Vista x64 btw. On the other hand, most Linux distros are infested with bugs and issues, and there is a horrendous lack of quality control in most distros in general. There is only 1 I know of that's above the rest, Ubuntu x64. Seems like you've drawn some quick conclusions on Vista based on some very limited experience with it. I would say the same thing about your Linux experience... it has many issues, but you've probably just come to overlook them and accept things as they are because you're used to it...

But.... to each his/her own...

 

it's common knowledge vista doesn't work on most people's computers. if you're having problems with linux it's probably too difficult for you, in that case it makes sense for you to prefer and use vista.

what are the problems you're having with linux? ubuntu has a beginner subforum, maybe you can get help there?

 

A phrase commonly used in propaganda and when spreading falsehoods

 

There is no doubt that other OS's are a bit quicker than Vista, but I always return to Vista, I just like it best, pretty simple.

I think Vista on any new PC works fine. I believe most people's problems with it are due to trying to install it on an older PC, or perhaps trying an "upgrade". I know just as many people who have no issues with Vista at all on new hardware. So your "common knowledge" would only appear to be a half truth at best.

I'm not having problems with Linux, been doing it for over 2 years now. I have used them all. And most of them are buggy.... I come from a DOS background and was a programmer for many many years. Trust me, there is no quality control in desktop Linux distros. And that is what puts me off. I still use it and experiment with it, but it will never become my main OS.

 

I feel pretty sure that Microsoft won't miss the holiday shopping season with Windows 7 as they did with Vista and I have no doubt they're under some pressure to make this OS available to OEMs as well as retailers by November.

After the horrendous (past) twelve months and consensus that at least the first half of 2009 will be more of the same, the electronics industry is desperate for a product that will spur the consumer to get off of their wallets.

That said, I don't see how W/7 can be a strong catalyst for a dramatic rise in hardware sales as 7's system requirements are quite similar to Vista's.
As has been already pointed out, thousands of computers have already been upgraded with faster multi-core processors, more memory, higher end GPUs, and upgraded monitors.
What's left to upgrade ?

For people like me, upgrading is out of the question; it would be far more practical to buy a new and fully compatible box with all of the goodies....
....far more practical if I did more than web surfing, e-mail, trying out new software, and occasionally backing up a DVD.
I bought Vista Ultimate but use XP because I'm much more familiar and therefore more comfortable with it.
It does for me all I need.

Just like millions of others, Microsoft got my money for vista, but if I am to buy it, I'll have to see in Windows 7 something that I just can't live without and isn't available in Vista.
That, I believe, represents the major obstacle to 7 being a success.

 

i bought a new PC just for vista, it hangs on bootup. a lot of people have problems with vista, if it's a hardware thing maybe MS got confused when they decided what the specs for running vista are. i'm not bothered at all by vista other than listening to people say it works when i know different, along with 1000s (perhaps 1000000s) of others.

if you want quality control just install debian or any other server, or enterprise, distro and put a desktop on it. bugs get fixed far faster with open source projects plus they aren't hidden either. ms sometimes doesn't bother doing a security patch when it's needed, othertimes they sneak patches for things hidden in other patches, you could miss a really important security fix because the patch they sneak it with doesn't apply to you!

that's really it, i'm not talking about vista anymore in this thread, i think we all know the facts, i can't see the point in going on.

 

If you bought a computer with the "Vista capable" logo, then that could explain your troubles. Microsoft did make a mistake when they decided what the specs should be in order to run Vista--the minimum was too low. As a result, PCs that were supposedly "Vista capable" weren't able to run Vista at its fullest. Also, late OS changes broke drivers and applications, leading to many poor user experiences around the time of Vista's launch. But a lot has changed since then... Vista is very stable at the moment. The bugs and driver incompatibilities have been sorted out for the most part.

 

well that's the problem i have, i have a brand new vista computer i bought just to try it out on and it won't boot without hanging, running applications take a minute, or more, to start etc, etc.

i posted in this thread to talk about the 7 beta and noticing vista being mentioned i kept it very short, but added this to the end of my post - "i've got vista, it doesn't work."

here is the post that followed mine -
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1378837&postcount=16

i replied, but i kept it short again - "no, it really doesn't work, i've got vista so i know." then Kerodo replies to that. it's the same thing everytime vista is mentioned, i go throught that again and again just because MS can't get the sticker right on their laptops.

 

If I bought my Vista computer, and after turning it on the first time I found it hanging, I would return it to the shop and ask for explanations. I bought my Vista computer in April 2008. Even without SP1 and having found preinstalled NIS 2006, it was fairly slow but never hanged. Needless to add now, configured to my taste it is as fast as XP in my other machine. Only shutting down Vista takes longer than XP:35 seconds and 15 seconds.

 

It appears that this thread has degenerated into another Vista bash-fest.

As someone else pointed out here earlier, so what if Win7 retains the so-called “bloat”. By the time of its release there will be more Quads in usage by then. Back in May I got an Acer—Quad 6600, 4GB RAM, 750GB HDD, for only $750. I have seen machines lately with the same specs even cheaper. What do you think the price will be a year from now? As it is with me now, who will care about processing power, HDD space, and RAM usage with such a setup?

As I have stated many times before, this is all part of the evolution that began when the PC was invented. I do not understand why some people are technological Luddites---only what to progress to a certain point and then stagnate.

 

Hey midway40,
not everyone can afford new hardware.
when there are operating systems that can do the same as what vista can do but is faster and more reliable why should someone put up with slow bloated vista?

 

lodore,

Actually, the question one should ask is whether it makes sense to upgrade to a new OS (a paid one that is...) if there isn't a compelling reason to do so, at least I've not seen one articulated for the upgrade to Vista on legacy hardware. If the PC comes with it..., well, it's the OS. But I don't "use" the OS, I use the apps that I install under it.

Blue

 

Let's time warp back to 2001. Your comment back then would be:

"not everyone can afford new hardware. I have a PII that runs Win98 nicely so why should I upgrade to the slow bloated XP?"

You cannot go and say that just because your hardware is older this new OS must be slow and bloated. Vista ran ok on my old P4 Dell but runs better on my Dual Core and Quad because it was designed for multiple core processors. Software engineers (especially OS) design software for contemporary hardware and hardware that is seen in the immediate future. Why should they design software for hardware conceived 10 years ago?

You're right, not everyone can afford new hardware. I am not rich myself (nor anywhere close to it). I have to charge my new computers and when I pay them off it is usually time for another PC (about every 4 years in my case). The difference this year is that I paid only $100 more on two computers than on the single Dell I bought back in 2004.

If your system cannot run Vista, fine--stick with XP. But don't go around with the blanket message that Vista is slow and bloated just because your system can't handle it. The thing is that I know you also have a Quad system so I cannot understand where your statements come from. It handles nicely even on my lowly laptop (in comparison to my Quad desktop).

 

Hey Midway40,
my machine has a quad core processer and 2gb of ram.
pretty much any linux distro runs alot faster than vista on the same machine.
i still have some slow times with vista.
espically file copying....
atm i dualboot because not everything runs on linux at this time but most stuff does.
there isnt really anything that vista can do that xp,OSX,linux.,freebsd,solaris etc cannot do.
yet vista is alot slower than the others. why would that be?

i prefer vista over xp. but i know that vista is slow even on decent hardware.

 

they need vista to work at the same speed as XP.

i have a good enough machine, with intel core2duo and 4gb ram and Vista isnt as fast as XP, thats always been everyones main argument.

 

Difference between xp and vista is not much !!

Almost Same discussion went on here
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=222483&highlight=vista xp advantages


I would like Mr Mark's statement to be repeated

"For anyone capable of spelling 'operating system,' there's no difference in what he/she can milk out of it, so the answer is - nothing. Power users will make whatever they wanna make out of it. Therefore, with 10x extra space and 2x memory requirement, Vista is a no-no for techies.

For non-techies, there might be some out-of-the-box improvements, but they are negligible compared to the downsides, since they're going to get infected anyway, so at least they should do it with low-spec requirements."


I dumped vista bcos , restoring an xp image takes 1 or 2 min ,but vista always takes longer than 5 minutes.And generally i dont like security features which microsoft is gonna offer me.Finally vista does can run some softwares as flexible as xp.