Windows 7 (What A Joke!)

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by DVD+R, Jun 10, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    8,003
    Or anyone remember Windows ME? One month of that and I ran out and bought Windows 2000 and installed that instead, and used it for 5 years.
     
  2. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,064
    Dont remind me lol.
    I used it for 4 years=(
    I dont know how i put up with it tbh lol. i remember my sister having to revert to msn messenger version 1 from 6 lol.
     
  3. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    8,003
    Wow! You have great patience.... :)
     
  4. dbknox

    dbknox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Posts:
    511
    Location:
    Canada
    Maybe you should write to MS, you are right on the money and it would be an ample name for Win 7. ( I love it)!!
     
  5. jonyjoe81

    jonyjoe81 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Posts:
    829
    I like windows 7 better than linux for ease of use. It looks good and loads up and shutsdown faster than xp, but when actually running programs there are slight delays in everything it does. XP is a speed demon in comparison.

    Windows 7 can actually compete with Linux in that it's a full OS and it's free (for one year use anyway) but unless the actual "store bought" version is faster, I'm sticking with XP.

    I wanted to like Windows 7, kept it on my computer for 3 weeks, adjusting my settings,changing video cards,adding ram,changing motherboards but it was still slower. I removed Windows 7 thinking maybe there was something wrong with the hardware. I installed XP and it ran like a champ, right now it's still installed. But I must admit, Windows 7 ran almost every program I threw at, albeit a little slower.

    I could upgrade my computer, but I prefer not to. It's plenty fast with XP.
     
  6. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    Agree, the timing problem but I guess the whole universe has that sort of timing problem.

    I think you are already insider as unconscious member and you have all foils at the right place. ;)
     
  7. demonon

    demonon Guest

    Yes, that's the big problem.
    If Microsoft decides to totally alter their system, there will be even more compatibility issues.
     
  8. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    8,003
    I hate to say it, but I have to agree. I think 7 is nice, but it's still much like Vista in many ways, and I certainly don't see it beating XP in performance. So for those reasons, I will probably pass on it too, and stick with XP. Linux is a good alternative for those who want it. For me, XPx64 does it best.
     
  9. SystemJunkie

    SystemJunkie Resident Conspiracy Theorist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Posts:
    1,500
    Location:
    Germany
    Personally I like the registry, you can do a lot of tricks with it, a little bit too big, probably you would need at least 10 years to check every subkey, without registry the many trial/shareware software had to find a new way of restricting their products.
     
  10. Meriadoc

    Meriadoc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Cymru
    :D Lol Vista2.

    To OP, XP32 or XP64 or have a play with Mac, maybe BSD and linux.
     
  11. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,225
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Actually Vista, since SP2 has been very, very fast for me........It's almost like 7! I personally do not think 7 is a big change over Vista - In any case Vista still comes out ahead in the gaming benchmarks (for now), and the 2D acceleration changes (Direct2D and DirectWrite) will be back-ported to Vista at a future date anyway; so apart from general snappiness there really isn't a solid reason to move to Windows 7 for me........
     
  12. phasechange

    phasechange Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Posts:
    359
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    QFT. I have to agree with the hot cat dude. In fact I'll go further. Vista 64 bit has been flawless for me from the beginning. Sure you appear to have less free memory because it caches stuff (which is a better use of memory than leaving it empty) however it has always ran perfectly for me.

    Initially some applications weren't very Vista friendly but those problems were solved before SP1 arrived.

    The problem is that the combination of so many architectural changes meant that many people had application problems, hated the UAC feature, and looked at the memory and thought "what a hog" resulting in Vista being unfairly demonized.

    In all honesty Vista is a very good OS and more secure than any previous Windows, including OS/2 (ignoring security through obscurity).

    Will I buy Windows 7 to sit alongside my Vista and Ubuntu machines? If there is a cheap version that does all the things I need then yes. If expensive then no thanks.
     
  13. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,380
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    The registry as a technical concept is really good.
    Problem is around how well its managed (by the OS and apps).
     
  14. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    I haven't ran Windows 7, but i 've tried Vista SP2. In that, the XP does seem a speed demon. But it's about the feeling, that comes from the snapiness of the interface. In Vista, i managed to get a "faster" feeling, only after reducing visual effects and setting aero to the most simple way.

    Otherwise, the 64bit Vista that i tried seemed very fast.

    The problem is, i would also like the snapiness of XP, but Vista (and 7) is much about good looks, so you can't turn down all visual effects... It looks worse than XP then.

    And eventually, one will have to abbandon XP... So, you may as well point to Windows 7, which seems that will become the next mainstream. So, once with that, you can stay many more years again without changing.

    In a few years, all programs and hardware drivers will be optimized for Windows 7. XP will look like the Windows 98, struggling to find support.

    For gamers, of course, staying anylonger with XP will become impossible. New video features will only work correctly in dx10 and so either you switch to 7 or no game...

    I think the best thing that one can do, is buy today a decent PC (any dual core and above), with 4 GB RAM (it's so cheap nowdays, i got 8 GB) and go to Windows 7 64bit. 32 bit doesn't worth it anymore. With 64bit the speed difference with XP is less felt. 64bit native applications run really fast. They 're not so many today, but they are increasing.

    You 'll be good for years to come. Unless Microsoft manages to come out after 2 more years with something spectacular better... But probably it will be a resource hog, so Win 7 64bit will be good choice as XP replacement for years to come. The sooner you get it and get used to it, the better. :D

    One thing is for sure, that XP was a milestone in OS history for the home user. I will miss it... :(
     
  15. mistycat

    mistycat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Posts:
    222
    I like W7 and think it will do well when it goes retail but I will never buy it. Don't hear this too much but it's too slow here and I can't be the only one. All program's that work on Vista work with W7 and only two unimportant program's don't on Vista. Incidentally, Vista SE is very appropriate, except for installed size, they're very similar. Boot time's of W7 are about 3x that of Vista and only a bit slower than XP here, shutdown is slower too. I was one of those knocking Vista but it's a good, fast OS and smaller than W7 if vLite remove's not much. Incidentally, I began on ME, didn't know enough to think it wasn't that great, thought it was pretty good then.
     
  16. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    If things run well in Vista but slow in Win 7, i would suspect it has to do with drivers optimization, which isn't complete yet for Win 7. When i first installed Vista (no SP), i had nothing but crashes. Uninstalled in a few hours. With SP2 and more mature drivers, it was a totally different story. I could say that maybe you don't have much RAM, but then Vista would also run slow, so it's not your RAM. Must be drivers.

    ME was THE junk of MS. So unstable. I got it too (it came with the PC) and soon enough i managed to find a Win98SE OEM CD and never touched ME again. :p
     
  17. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    I agree, us XP holdouts are on borrowed time. As well as I like it, I really feel that adopting 7 now is the wise thing to do, at least in terms of beginning to know the inside and out of what I will probably have to purchase in the not so far away future anyway.

    As far as speed goes, I have used Vista Ultimate 32&64, as well as 7. I don't think 64 is really faster, but I did not use it much. XP is undeniably faster, but on my machine 7 was not slow enough to seem different without side by side comparison on most things, but not all. Vista SP1, that I can definately feel how sluggish it is to XP.

    Still, in the end I think knowing the OS is worth more now that going into it in a year or two and being lost.

    Sul.
     
  18. mistycat

    mistycat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Posts:
    222
    It does seem to be a driver issue, at least in XP but, so far, Vista, hand's down, is fastest on this computer, on another, I'm staying with XP. Definitely not RAM, built this pc for Vista (4 G Ram, AMD 6400). I installed Vista some time ago but didn't care for it and returned to XP and that's when XP became slow. Tried W7 and it was so much like Vista that I reinstalled Vista again a couple of week's ago and seem's good now with thing's the way I want.
     
  19. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,448
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    Interesting to read all the postings. I found ME bad too and reformatted to retail box XP when it came out after adding RAM card. Best PC improvement I ever made. While slow that PC is still in service at a relatives home today.

    Vista to me is o. k. it works for me, but don't believe it was any great leap forward. If Win7 is lighter and faster that is an improvement. No question in my mind, to me XP is the fastest, easiest, user friendly OS from MS. I have to rely on such threads for news on this as I don't do RC testings.

    How much longer will MS support it?? What is the latest on that?

    Edit: Boot time on Vista yea really slow compared to XP. I often wonder if I am hanging up and just about that moment it comes up.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2009
  20. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    You're kidding, right? The concept is horrible.
     
  21. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Yours setup is better than mine, so it's definitely drivers issue. (My CPU is AMD 5050e, 4GB RAM, XP).

    Drivers play huge role. Some years ago i used to update like maniac. At some point i realised that every piece of hardware and OS have a "golden" driver, after which performance decreases because they care more about newer hardware.

    My current motherboard is about 1 month old. The video drivers on the CD (on board video) were soooo bad. Scrolling a page down of IE or Opera was choppy. I was horrified. I thought "OMG, this looks like i downgraded my PC instead of upgrading! I threw my money away!". Playing HD video, was making the CPU sweat. So i went to take the newer drivers. Everything was perfect (Catalyst 4.14). A few days ago i downloaded Catalyst 4.15. Video playing was choppy again. So back to 4.14 and i am not changing them unless i have some problem.

    I am confident that you need to find the right driver for the right OS (for your hardware).

    Yes, RAM is historically, the best investment one can make. It's never too much. You can have the best CPU, if your RAM is too little, everything is choked and your CPU seems like a turtle.

    Of course, how can you beat XP, with much less services and a much simpler interface that doesn't need 3D video acceleration just to open one window... With Vista and full aero glass crap, it's like running permanently a 3D screensaver on your desktop... Then good luck in beating XP. The best close-to-XP perforance i 've seen in Vista was when i tried Vista Basic. No Aero, no nothing. You also trimmed down visual effects and services and it was coming pretty close. But 64bit is the best bet to come close to XP, while keeping some eye-candy. Visual effects still play huge role, but when more 64bit programs are out, the overall performance will be very good. Even the folders icon in Vista are way "heavier" because of their "looks" compared to XP. So overall, you get the feeling of the OS being "slow". While in reality, in application execution there isn't much difference. The difference is opening windows, using explorer, clicking folders, seeing folder content etc. In XP, it's zap-zap-zap-zap when you click. In Vista it's zaaap-zaaap-zaaap-zaaap. So people feel it "slow". The eye-candy comes at a price... I used my visual effects setting from XP as guide for Vista, that helped a lot to make the feeling faster. It's nice the "fading" and "sliding" animations, but all you get is LAG.

    Same here. XP boots way faster.
     
  22. mistycat

    mistycat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Posts:
    222
    Your dead on about the impact of driver's; it wasn't long ago that MS sent through an update for my Nvidia Display Adapter that so screwed up my resolution that only an image restore fixed thing's; tried a few time's from a different site but same thing. Now I tend to leave driver's alone unless there's a particular problem. The point is, XP and W7 are incredibly slow here while it's hard to imagine anything faster than Vista with full Aero (regardless of computer running XP) and other's may see the same. The average purchaser isn't going to tinker with thing's and W7 could run quite slow for some although that doesn't appear to be the case, very few say it's slow.
     
  23. Keyboard_Commando

    Keyboard_Commando Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Posts:
    690
    lodore is clearly a nuts, 4 years using Win ME ...

    ARRRRGHHHHH!?!

    winmgmt.exe 100% cpu ... CRASH BANG REBOOT ... is imprinted on my mind FOREVER.
     
  24. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
  25. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,064
    Yes now i look back its even more funny lol. remember that with older windows os's if you pressed ctrl alt delete twice it rebooted lol?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.