What If Windows 7 Is A Dud ?

Speaking of speed, the obscure perpetually ignored Windows XPx64 is de facto fastest OS ever to come out of MS, file transfers are faster, boot time is faster, overall performance is super fast compared to my Vista x64 but as Lodore said above, Linux still manages to be faster, in my case Ubuntu with full Compiz on is faster than both.

 

My primary problem with Vista is not speed, but appearance.
Admittedly, my computer by today's standards is close to ancient, but still, I find it really aggravating that I can't get clean graphics even with the latest drivers.

I have a Dell E510 incorporating an Intel P4 630 processor, 2.5 gig memory, a Radeon X300 video card, and a Westinghouse 17" lcd monitor. On my desktop, the icons are always "splotchy"; they look just like the icons look in XP in safe mode.

The latest ATI drivers don't correct the problem and, in fact, don't keep the user defined settings on reboot.

I've read that the only cure is to upgrade my graphics card and monitor.
Why should that be necessary just to see the most simple of graphics properly ?

 

Unfortunately time marches on, and eventually, at some point, we all need to upgrade or buy new hardware. That's just the nature of things. I hung on to an old PIII for ages till I finally bought this new machine, and now everything runs well and I'm current and happy again.

As for speed, I agree with Arup above, XP x64 is faster than Vista x64, I have used both here, however, I'm still a sucker for Vista. At the moment, I am also dual booting Vista with Ubuntu, and of course Ubuntu is also faster. All I can say in defense of Vista is, sometimes speed isn't everything. Vista performs well enough for me to like and keep. And in day to day usage, I really don't see all that much difference... However, the edge definitely does go to XPx64 and Linux. I personally like the looks of Vista.

XP unfortunately, will be history in time. Windows 7 is coming next, and the choices will be that or a Mac or Linux. XP will slowly fade away, just like Win98 and Win2k have. Soon it'll be time to move on for those who haven't already.

 

XP is here to stay, it'll outlive vista and vista2 (aka windows 7). When vista is humanely buried, XP will be one of the "honored" pallbearers. The many statements of XP's impending demise has been greatly exaggerated.

Ultimately XP well be replaced, but it won't happen anytime soon. It's replacement will be something similar to XP but faster and more powerful and maybe a "prettier" desktop for those who prefer "looks" over function.

 

stapp;

Many thanks for the suggestion, but my color depth settings are already at 32 bit.
The problem is somewhere else, perhaps hardware related after all.

Anyway, I am the OP for this thread and wanted to thank all who have posted for their contribution(s).
This has been enjoyable as well as informative.

 

Doesn't seem to be a dud, at least not yet:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236

 

Dream on.....

 

As much as i prefer to have my CPU at 0% when i open explorer windows , so to have it available for running other applications , other than windows itself, eventually, new hardware won't have XP drivers. And then, adios XP... Vista 7 will be the reasonable step for those that don't want to pay for the current Vista. (like me).

I am sure it will be better than Vista, since they learnt their lessons and this is a revamped Vista. But i find it a bit odd. Vista boots and installs faster than XP Should i believe this? What i remember was that in order to install Vista and apply the SP1, it was an ordeal. It seemed that it would never finish! I was desperately bored waiting for it to finish. And this guy says it's faster than XP? Hmm....

 

Vista installs faster than XP... that is a fact. However, I find it a bit odd, too, that Vista beats XP on almost all of the tests. Maybe because he is using a high-end system.

 

You're kidding, right? XP will go on for YEARS in the business world. Have we not forgotten there are still plenty of businesses still running Windows 98?

 

Windows 2000, maybe. Haven't seen 98 for a while.

 

I see them in a LOT of doctors' offices. You know 'ol 98 when you see it.

 

$M has always had a foolish and costly habit of running away in abandonment of their O/S's before they been totally brought up to complete satisfaction. And i said it all along, that's why they experience both sales losses and cracked versions all over the net.

I'm sticking with my XP Pro Volume License untill they show some real progress and not just generic add ons re-branded as some weird named release.

XP Pro ROCKS!!!

 

W7 will not be a dud. In fact, it's just Vista, tweaked and optimized.

 

It's hard to say what will happen. If Windows 7 actually turns out well, the business world could do a mass movement in that direction pretty quickly, as it would be about time anyway. I have no idea.

I think my point was and/or is, you can't stop the march of time, and "progress", no matter how much you might want to. Hardware keeps changing, and eventually, everything else with it.

Truth is, we're all just speculating. Time will tell....

 

You're quite right, it may be that businesses are HOPING 7 turns out good so they can update their systems.

 

I really don't believe most businesses approach it that way.

If you're in a business and you want to do something - develop a new product or upgrade the PC systems - you have a make a cogent business case for it. Where's the return on the investment contemplated? Where am I making money on this expenditure?

At least where I am - a multi-billion manufacturing company with major production/sales in the Americas, EU, Asia - you really do have to be able to answer the question - ".... and this will contribute to our bottom line where?"

As time passes, a critical application or customer relation management suite or logistics application or whatever, may no longer be available/supported/or released on the old OS, so to implement that package you need to migrate to the new OS. Or perhaps reports from the field start mounting that support costs really are lower if the systems are upgraded. Or productivity is higher due to some key new features/less crashing/you name it. However, it's all tangible stuff even if the cost saving estimates are on the very soft side. To get you calibrated, we really just finished our conversion to XP in the past year. That's right - right at it's supposed end of life - but this is all driven by the application base that we work with, which goes well beyond Office apps, and includes things like OS neutral browser front ends for enterprise level applications, process control applications, many different database applications which often need to talk to one another in some form, and so on.

My guess, given what looks like the timing on the Win 7 release, the pain involved in large scale conversions in a business environment (where stability and ability to quickly support is a premium), and the current economic climate, is that most IT groups will make do as long as they are able to and then convert to Win 7 with a turnover in the hardware base in a couple of years. As for Vista..., it will be "sold" on new PC's in the interim and downgraded to the local environment (say XP Pro) as needed prior to deployment, while on the consumer side... you'll get Vista unless you go with a netbook level machine (which - by the way - are really nice )

Blue

 

Then again i still wonder why my college wasted thousands of £££ on office 2007 when 2003 done everything that was needed.
plus the fact they could of used openoffice and spent the money alot moe wisely.

not all business decisens are good ones.

 

Or they might have a volume license that allows them to upgrade all their installations without paying extra (MSDN Academic Alliance).

In my university, every computer science student are able to download the latest software from Microsoft (that's how I got my Vista Business license). Even Windows XP Pro is still available. Also, my university uses OpenOffice along with Office 2007 Enterprise.

 

Well, I guess that's hard to argue after what's happened to the commercial sector this Fall

However, academic and large commercial environments are very different. Goals are different, costs are different, other things (staff turnover, nature of the IT function, etc.) are different. Without knowing a lot of details that you may not be privy to..., your college's decision may have been wise, unwise, or a decision neutral coin flip. It's hard to say.

Blue

 

Good points.... and also, an application is quite a bit different from an OS.

 

IMO it is very simple: If you don't like the feeling of Vista then you stay with XP, Linux or Mac. I have now Vista, XP, and Ubuntu in different computers. I do appreciate the philosophy of Linux, the practical side of having a machine with XP (some programs do not run with Vista), and the gorgeous look of Vista.

Vista remains my favorite by far over the others. I do not understand why people who are happily married to XP they need to constantly whinge about Vista. MS is a private enterprise which is not using any public money, their financial future is in their own hands. I'm sure Windows 7 will be an improvement over Vista like Vista
has been over XP. If big corporations upgrade to Vista or not, I for one could not care less. I don't think big corporations would have the same criteria as home users when deciding to upgrade to another OS.

 

If business adopts Win 7, the UAC in Vista needs to go. No normal or typical business end user will stand for that stuff. In fact, perhaps that is one major reason why Vista has not been used in the business world.

I prefer Vista over all else also, but I can see how and why it wouldn't fly in certain environments...