Windows 7

dirtydog said:
I won't be using Windows 7 then, in fact I'll continue to stick with XP. The 'old' taskbar works perfectly and these new changes are for change's sake only, something different to try and justify the existence of another Windows release. Much like many of the 'features' in Vista which were a step backwards from XP.
Click to expand...

Did they not say it is apparently more touch screen friendly?

I'm not so keen on the new task bar, I do like its more squareness if you know what I mean, seems allot more clean, but I don't like the fact it is taller than the older task bar and the way tabs are displayed on it, if it was the same old task bar but just a cleaner looking more square look then that would be good for me.
 
I don't use a touch screen so it's of no interest to me. A mouse and keyboard are superior to a touch screen for my money.

What I like about the 'old' taskbar (one of the many things) is you can see what windows you have open by reading the minimised taskbar windows - you don't need to 'mouse over' them like you do with Windows 7, or indeed OS X.
 
After doing an XP install last night, I can't believe how much better Vista really is... Can't wait for Windows 7.
 
Dolph said:
After doing an XP install last night, I can't believe how much better Vista really is... Can't wait for Windows 7.
Click to expand...

In what regard is it better? Perhaps you call being sluggish and anti-intuitive 'better' - I personally don't. Nor do I call having various features which are demonstrably broken or inferior to Windows XP, better.

I recently upgraded my PC and tried Vista again, and it is still horribly sluggish compared to XP, even on a quad core CPU with 2 gigs of RAM. Who knows, maybe that isn't enough?
 
dirtydog said:
In what regard is it better? Perhaps you call being sluggish and anti-intuitive 'better' - I personally don't. Nor do I call having various features which are demonstrably broken or inferior to Windows XP, better.

I recently upgraded my PC and tried Vista again, and it is still horribly sluggish compared to XP, even on a quad core CPU with 2 gigs of RAM. Who knows, maybe that isn't enough?
Click to expand...

Some people complain about Vista being sluggish, I just think that is a problem with their PC or have some crap software on, since I (And I'm not the only one) find Vista much more responsive than XP.

Either that or you PC just does not get on with Vista..
 
willhub said:
Some people complain about Vista being sluggish, I just think that is a problem with their PC or have some crap software on, since I (And I'm not the only one) find Vista much more responsive than XP.

Either that or you PC just does not get on with Vista..
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with my PC and I'm comparing a clean install of Vista to a well used XP install which is full of programs.
 
dirtydog said:
Nothing wrong with my PC and I'm comparing a clean install of Vista to a well used XP install which is full of programs.
Click to expand...

That's just odd, a fresh install of Vista compared to a fresh install of XP even I found Vista still comes out faster.
 
willhub said:
That's just odd, a fresh install of Vista compared to a fresh install of XP even I found Vista still comes out faster.
Click to expand...

Could be that Vista thrashes the hell out of my hard drive which XP thankfully doesn't feel the need to do.

It also still doesn't work properly with my Audigy 2, which I refuse to upgrade from when it is still a perfectly good card.

Oh, why do the Vista scores top out at 5.9? What is the point when every machine newer than about four years old scores that?
 
dirtydog said:
Could be that Vista thrashes the hell out of my hard drive which XP thankfully doesn't feel the need to do.

It also still doesn't work properly with my Audigy 2, which I refuse to upgrade from when it is still a perfectly good card.

Oh, why do the Vista scores top out at 5.9? What is the point when every machine newer than about four years old scores that?
Click to expand...

Turn off indexing and anything else using the hard drive.

Vista uses 64bit sound as default, so no need for lame Audigy cards.

There's no point in the scores at all if you know how to use a computer.
 
dirtydog said:
Could be that Vista thrashes the hell out of my hard drive which XP thankfully doesn't feel the need to do.

It also still doesn't work properly with my Audigy 2, which I refuse to upgrade from when it is still a perfectly good card.

Oh, why do the Vista scores top out at 5.9? What is the point when every machine newer than about four years old scores that?
Click to expand...

Hmmm yea I forgot about that, that is one disadvantage over XP, I do remember at first Vista absolutely THRASHED my HDD, all I heard was the HDD constantly churning away.

To solve it turning System restore and Indexing service off seemed to do the trick, I have those off in XP as well so to me it is no disadvantage.

And as above, no point in the scores, I'd say they are just for "n00bs" tbh, but I think the lower the space on the HDD the lower the score too, and that wont always, if ever impact performance until it is getting so low you only have a couple of GB left.
 
mr.sly said:
Turn off indexing and anything else using the hard drive.

Vista uses 64bit sound as default, so no need for lame Audigy cards.

There's no point in the scores at all if you know how to use a computer.
Click to expand...

That's jolly nice for Vista but it means nothing to me and my Audigy 2 card (the original quality type, not one of the recent cheaper type) is not lame - well except in Vista where it only has the most basic of functionality.

I agree the scores are pointless. They should have been open-ended and games or other software should have the required level on the box, as was planned. It seems that all went out the window at some point.
 
willhub said:
How much better is Vista for you? What made you think it is better?
Click to expand...

Superfetch, decent privilege management (that far too many people who don't understand turn off), significantly better hardware support (not that I expect anything from XP these days given it's age), easier management and setup etc etc. Then we go into the massive improvements in the display, networking and sound stacks...

It's just a much more polished and better experience all around.
 
willhub said:
Hmmm yea I forgot about that, that is one disadvantage over XP, I do remember at first Vista absolutely THRASHED my HDD, all I heard was the HDD constantly churning away.

To solve it turning System restore and Indexing service off seemed to do the trick, I have those off in XP as well so to me it is no disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Also Superfetch and Windows Defender need to be turned off to stop the trashing (mostly).

Also UAC slows the system down in the number of steps required to get things done.

Hell I could write a book on how Vista is inferior to XP in so many ways but this thread probably isn't the place for it I guess ;)
 
Get with the times dirtydog :p Seriously.

Vista on a quad core with 2GB is like a rocket ship. I'm typing this on a Q6600 with 4GB and it's a rocket ship at light speed :p

PS: I reserve judgement at the moment regarding the new W7 task bar. I am hoping they will come up with a compromise solution to be honest. I don't like the Mac OSX style of doing things. What's next? A single menu bar at the top for all applications!?
 
Dolph said:
Superfetch, decent privilege management (that far too many people who don't understand turn off), significantly better hardware support (not that I expect anything from XP these days given it's age), easier management and setup etc etc. Then we go into the massive improvements in the display, networking and sound stacks...

It's just a much more polished and better experience all around.
Click to expand...

Networking - improvements like needing several more steps to get into the network connections window, and having a completely broken network activity system tray icon.
 
dirtydog said:
Also Superfetch and Windows Defender need to be turned off to stop the trashing (mostly).

Also UAC slows the system down in the number of steps required to get things done.

Hell I could write a book on how Vista is inferior to XP in so many ways but this thread probably isn't the place for it I guess ;)
Click to expand...

If you turn superfetch off, no wonder your vista install seems slow...
 
NathanE said:
Get with the times dirtydog :p Seriously.

Vista on a quad core with 2GB is like a rocket ship. I'm typing this on a Q6600 with 4GB and it's a rocket ship at light speed :p
Click to expand...

I have a Q6600 also. I expected Vista to perform subjectively quicker than my old P4 did, but was left very underwhelmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom