3 years is not unusual for a Windows version life cycle. It's only because XP had an unusually long lifecycle.
7 or vista
- Thread starter timaloy
- Start date
3 years is not unusual for a Windows version life cycle. It's only because XP had an unusually long lifecycle.
Been running 7 as my main OS since Jan and haven't had any problems with it. I'm now running it on my Samsung NC10 netbook and my Asus EeeBox, both 1.6 Ghz Intel Atoms without any issue, I couldn't imagine Vista running on them. The EeeBox is hooked up to a 22" HDTV running Windows 7 Media Centre with SD content and it runs perfectly.
Only thing I had issues with on the Atom systems was the Intel video driver but in the RTM build it seems to run fine.
Only thing I had issues with on the Atom systems was the Intel video driver but in the RTM build it seems to run fine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
its the same with every new OS
the same old internet crap gets dug back up.
when i installed win 7 on my 3 yearold laptop it found every driver i didnt need to download any, thats the first time thats ever happened to me.
there are still people that havent even tried vista because of what they read on the net
yet i never had any real problems with it and i liked it over XP
the same old internet crap gets dug back up.
when i installed win 7 on my 3 yearold laptop it found every driver i didnt need to download any, thats the first time thats ever happened to me.
there are still people that havent even tried vista because of what they read on the net
yet i never had any real problems with it and i liked it over XP
Well for me on a triboot system (XP32 , vista64 , w7x64) I'm using w7 as the default as i find it just easier to use. XP32 just does not cope anymore with the amount of apps I run, vista64 although much improved from the original release I still find slightly flaky and a resource hog and w7 although not prefect (there's a few games that just won't run on it but run on vista 64) is generally giving me far less issues
vista or 7 is a difficult choice i hav to make soon when i get a new pc for gaming, looking at websites quite a lot of game supposedly run fine on it, but fallout 3 on one website apparently had problems with installation (i think it was on the beta of win7 so hopefully will be sorted) as thats a game i am particularly looking forward to playing. Do you reckon win7 home premium 64 bit would be good for gaming with i7 920 and a ati 4890?
See now I have pre-ordered a copy of 7 pro for cheap, but the more I think about it the more I'm thinking: "Is 7 really that much better than vista" and "does 7 do things which I do that vista doesn't do very well".
In all honesty the answer to both questions is no. Vista 64 for me has been rock solid since sp1, since sp2 was released I've found it a breeze and just as fast as 7 when I tried the rtm.
If you are buying anew then you may as well get 7 as it is released very soon, if you are upgrading from vista I wouldn't bother to be honest I beleive the improvements are negligible.
I'm more than likely going to cell my retail copy of 7 pro as soon as it arrives at my door, i'll probably make a tidy profit.
In all honesty the answer to both questions is no. Vista 64 for me has been rock solid since sp1, since sp2 was released I've found it a breeze and just as fast as 7 when I tried the rtm.
If you are buying anew then you may as well get 7 as it is released very soon, if you are upgrading from vista I wouldn't bother to be honest I beleive the improvements are negligible.
I'm more than likely going to cell my retail copy of 7 pro as soon as it arrives at my door, i'll probably make a tidy profit.