Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 19 Aug 2008.
time to upgrade from me maybe, i love that os lol
That's the point, people go on about how Windows needs a fresh start etc- Vista is the 'fresh start' in which they fixed security etc, which is why people have had all these problems with compatibility. Windows 7 will probably just build on that, add some nice cloud and touch features, and generally give people a decent enough incentive to upgrade.
no OS works flawlessly for me
but Vista works better than XP for me....
Blatent ploy to get the ones holding out with XP to get Vista, then release 7 with some major improvements and need that too.
another +1 here.
I find the people who complain about vista being a resource hog, are the same people who complained about XP being a resource hog when it first arrived. Agreed the difference is bigger than either ME/2000 to XP than it is XP to Vista, but the points the same.
Computers move on. Vista is new, and runs very well on new hardware. Its memory management is a lot better than previous versions, and the more Ram you feed it the more it prepares stuff at boot to make everything quicker.
In 2002, you may have bought a base model car with no air-con, PAS electric windows etc and a new base model may have them. Do you go off on one how it adds loads more weight, or do you appreciate the new comfortable features and improved engine efficiency and so on....
just my 2 pence
I knew this all along since the myth surrounding MinWin kernel was debunked some months ago.
MinWin was this radical slimmer kernel which allowed for a fully modularized kernel. According to Microsoft, Vista is already modularized (in that you can add/remove OS components or features).
The fresh start, that maintains virtually all backward compatiblity etc (thus isn't very fresh). As for the security... as someone who supports a lot of users, the only thing that the new security features are good for is teaching users not to read and just click yes... how many have moaned that the UAC is annoying, and they just click yet to get rid of it, completely defeating the point of it.
I can see Windows 7 needing even more resources than Vista, granted we may be able to get more ram etc... but why should we when its not NEEDED.
I am quite happy with 1GB for working with web designs in Photoshop, under linux (where i spend most of my time) 512MB would suffice. I don't want to have to buy more RAM just cos the OS has got a lot more bloated.
there is a debate about vista and Goodbytes hasn't showed up yet ? weird
Why can't you guys get out of the rut that microsoft put you in years ago?
Resources are there to be used
Why would you buy a HUGE system only to have 5% of it being used 95% of the time????
Who to blame for the weather, Bush, your impotence, etc.
But, why should we be forced to upgrade a perfectly working pc because microsoft writes a bloated OS / Office app etc that needs so many resources
If your computer is working perfectly why upgrade the OS?
Why don't you get your facts straight?
Vista doesn't Need so many resources - It ran fine on my old Athlon 2400+(1.9GHz) with 1Gb of RAM and a Radeon 9800Pro. However, if you give it more Resources, then it will use those effectively to improve your experience of it.
The only thing holding most systems back nowadays is the hard disk. If you throw RAM at Vista, it will do its best to try and lessen that bottleneck.
I'd be interested to know exactly what tweaks will be made for Windows 7 though...
it does have a big hard drive footprint... but that is what you get when your OS has lots of stuff in it to avoid problems like the lack of drivers and stuff....
all these versions... lol
im a geek and i dont even know what they are all for.
Mmmm so it's like Windows 98SE all over again? I wonder how much we'll have to pay for the upgrade....
Separate names with a comma.