Windows Codename "7" to be called....

barnettgs said:
7 is a lucky number. After all, it's what Microsoft needs...badly especially after the Vista. :p
Click to expand...

Hello barnettgs, going by that logic, Windows 7 will be just as bad as Windows Vista. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Windows Vista, certainly not to the extent that some people proclaim. :)
 
Last edited:
Iraklis F.C. said:
no there are lots of things wrong with vista. Even balmer admitted it
Click to expand...

Nothing is perfect. I don't think Balmer has ever said there are "a lot" of things wrong with Vista. The only thing I've ever really heard him mention is compatibility, but things have to break if you want to push things forward.
 
sure , networking problems , slow multitasking , memory hungry , low 3D performance , DRM etc

so far the best OS i have seen from microsoft is 2003 server and XP X64. vista is good but i prefer XP with some vista skin. Besides the appearance vista is merely a step forward
 
Last edited:
DRM....i pirate a lot, never had a problem, networking was much bettter than XP, as there were no drivers needed or setting up of the net using CDs.

multitaking, explain further as i dont notice a difference from XP,

a few frames here and there is not noticable in gaming.

memory hungry..... its been 7 years since XP came out, you expect it to run on 512MB?

vista came out when 2x1GB sticks were normall and tbh even gaming 2x1GB is enough, esp in 32 bit.

why buy ram and then complain its being used?
 
i have had networking problems , slow gigabit LAN performance. I had to disable something whioch had to do with an audio service or so...were talking a gigabit network having max speeds sth like 10MB/s...with XP we get 32MB/s on average (same setups).

Multitasking is worse or no better than NT 5.2 , in general the system to my understanding is not taking advantage of my Q6600 , maybe NT 5.2 doesn't but you would expect NT 6.0 to improve...it didn't.

tbh memory being used is good , with XP the system is dead fast with 2 gigs of RAM , vista is faster with 4 gigs NOT 2 gigs. Vista feels a lot smoother with 4 gigs of RAM . And thats not cheap , especially DDR3

DRM can only get worse and the fact that you never had a problem doesnt mean it is a thing to ignore. You may have problems in the future
 
Iraklis F.C. said:
so far the best OS i have seen from microsoft is 2003 server and XP X64. vista is good but i prefer XP with some vista skin. Besides the appearance vista is merely a step forward
Click to expand...

Hello Iraklis F.C, Windows Vista is much, much more than a new appearance. Windows Vista was a very important windows release with a lot of the changes being mainly done under the hood.

There are many other smaller improvements made to Vista that will improve the experience of the OS. For example, fewer reboots should be needed when DLLs and drivers are upgraded, NTFS volumes can be shrunk on-the-fly, NTFS can repair corruption automatically in the background (eliminating the need to reboot to run chkdsk), and improved backups based on volume shadow copy can be made, along with many others. Together, these improvements make for an extremely compelling upgrade. Vista is not simply XP with a new skin; core parts of the OS have been radically overhauled, and virtually every area has seen significant refinement. In terms of the magnitude and extent of these changes, Vista represents probably the biggest leap that the NT platform has ever seen. Never before have significant subsystems been gutted and replaced in the way they are in Vista. As such, it's a hugely important release.
Click to expand...

Source - so far the best OS i have seen from microsoft is 2003 server and XP X64. vista is good but i prefer XP with some vista skin. Besides the appearance vista is merely a step forward[/QUOTE]"]Windows Vista: Under the Hood

You may also be interested in some of the posts that NathanE has written like this one here, taken from this thread here. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom