mothra on 1/9/2009 at 14:23
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
:picard: You always interpret everything literally, do you? WDM 1.1 isn't an entirely new architecture, it won't take long for a hardware vendor with their shit sorted to come out with properly optimised drivers.
i didn't say replaced, i said CHANGED. it's even in capital letters. wow. I saw that coming. apart from ludicrous testing scenarios that never ever will appear like this in real life, my day-2-day use of Win7 on my old PC compared with VISTA on my NEW AND FAST PC at work convinced me that Win7 is far more responsive, compatible and stable than Vista. It's purely subjective, take it with a grain of salt but for me it seems Win7 outperforms WinXP on "medium-age" PCs if you have a decent videocard to handle Aero or turn it off in the first place and outperforms Vista using newer PCs.
Anyways, dualboot Win7 / XP will be the system of my choice for the next few years.
Renzatic on 1/9/2009 at 14:56
I dunno why you'd even want an XP partition alongside 7. Unless you want to keep your ass covered for those rare just in case moments, I haven't had a reason to run back to XP since I fired up the beta back in February. Other than the first two Gothics, which are flaky due to an Nvidia driver issue, everything I've run in 7 works as well as it does in all the older OSes.
This is coming from an old ex Vista basher. I didn't particularly like Vista much when it came out because it didn't seem to do anything new. I felt it was more a lateral upgrade, doing the same things as all the previous Windows did, but in a more complicated, roundabout fashion. With 7, the new UI, libraries, jumplists, and all that good stuff on top of the general solid, speedy feel of the thing makes it hard for me to consider ever going back to XP.
mothra on 1/9/2009 at 17:15
i got some 3rd party ras / vpn clients that must run no matter what (for remote support) and they don't like vista/win7. a few games gave me troubles and I only tested out the dx10 ones on win7 since xp is running at the same speed for me.
june gloom on 1/9/2009 at 19:42
You can't get me to switch to Windows 7 until long after it's had a couple of service packs. I'm sorry, but switching to a new OS right off the bat is a bad idea all around.
gunsmoke on 1/9/2009 at 19:52
My 3 nearly year old Aspire laptop [1.8 GHz Celeron M, 1 Gig DDR2 RAM, intel 945 express chipset (best onboard graphics chip I have ever experienced)] came with Vista. I was a Vista hater and immediately formatted the HDD and installed XP. When it came time for the inevitable Windows format, I decided to install Vista back into it, sans Aero. It actually boots and operates faster, smoother, and more reliably than XP did on the same machine. Now that it has been service packed twice, it is extremely stable and a helluva lot easier on the eyes than XP.
Minion21g on 1/9/2009 at 20:59
It's not like the performance changed drastically over any of the polled operating systems. For myself, the only reason I installed Windows 7 RC1 was because I liked the taskbar and Aero. It's more efficient when it comes to getting work done over XP. As well, I knew my games would run regardless which operating system I use. So... what's the point of this thread?
I'm tired of reading Eva's trolling nonsense.
Renzatic on 1/9/2009 at 22:04
Quote Posted by dethtoll
You can't get me to switch to Windows 7 until long after it's had a couple of service packs. I'm sorry, but switching to a new OS right off the bat is a bad idea all around.
You're talking to someone who switched from 3.1 to 98 to XP right off the bad, and I remember well the pain in the asses I had to face with all those OSes pre SP1. I still endured, though. Despite the occasional flakiness and everyone bitching about how games performed better in 98 than they did XP, I thought not being forced to reboot at least 4 times a day and rare crashes was a good tradeoff.
So I can speak with a bit of bloated, pompous authority when I say that 7 is the about perfect right out the gate (YMMV of course). It doesn't need a service pack to tune up all the stupid issues MS let slip by. It's just slick and smooth as soon as you finish installing. It's pretty nice when the beta software I've been testing out for about 7 months now has yet to crash and doesn't put up any arguments, fuss, or muss over whatever I throw at it.
Yeah, it's something MS should've been doing since the beginning. Fulfilling their obligation to provide relatively bugfree software at release. But hey. At least they finally did it, and I want to give them a pat on the back for it.
Matthew on 1/9/2009 at 22:38
Got my Win7 Pro preorder in; the times will not find me marching out of lockstep :cool:
swaaye on 1/9/2009 at 23:12
I'd say that going from Vista to 7 is similar to 95 -> 98SE (not original 98). It seems rather refined, with improvements over its very similar predecessor. I don't think you can say that Vista is better any more than you can say 95 is better than 98SE.
On the other hand, XP vs 7 is not at all like Win9x vs. Win3.x. XP still works for the vast majority out there and there isn't much reason to change most of them to the new thing until they are ready to buy a whole new sys.
Rogue Keeper on 2/9/2009 at 09:37
Yes, I upgrade to W7 and then I barely find an interesting game for it.
